Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARRY CORPORATION (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL (By Order)

BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

CHERTSEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

RUGBY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Victoria Cross Centenary Celebrations

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken to obtain information about the number of holders of the Victoria Cross resident overseas who wish to attend them centenary celebrations but lack the means to do so.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Commonwealth and Colonial Governments concerned have been consulted and are considering the problem.

Netley Hospital

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what proposals have been submitted to him by the General Officer Commanding, Southern Command, concerning Netley Hospital; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Head: I have received no formal proposals, but I know that the main building is out of date. It is within the general plan for the improvement of hospitals.

Mr. Bellenger: Was it with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman that the General Officer Commanding made a statement to the Press the other day that this hospital was sadly out of date, was costing £50,000 a year to keep up, and needed rebuilding? Is not that more within the province of the right hon. Gentleman himself?

Mr. Head: I was not aware of this statement, but, of course, it is factual, and I have no objection to factual statements being made by generals.

Guardsman (Traffic Accident)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War what military punishment was imposed on a guardsman-in the Coldstream Guards fined at Woking magistrate's court on 2nd' December last for careless driving.

Mr. Head: On 31st October he was awarded seven days confinement to barracks for being involved in a traffic accident.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not really a scandal that after two consecutive nights of guard duty at the Bank of England this man should be expected to carry out normal day duties and, as a result, fell asleep at the wheel of a three-ton lorry? Would it not have been more appropriate for the commanding officer to have paid this fine and for this man not to have been punished twice for the same offence?

Mr. Head: It is customary for all London units to do day duty after a night's guard duty, which is one hour on sentry and two hours asleep. If that was not the rule, I do not know how the duty would be done. I am sorry for the man, but that has been the custom and it must remain.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the officer awarding the punishment was not aware at the time that the police were to prosecute? It was, therefore, hard luck on the guardsman to be punished twice, and would not my right hon. Friend consider paying the £2 from Army funds?

Mr. Head: What my hon. and gallant Friend says is perfectly true, but when the commanding officer found this out he sent an officer to the court to intervene to say that the soldier had been tried and given seven days' C.B., and that was taken into account by the court.

Mr. M. Stewart: But could not the Minister take some precautions to prevent

Unit
Last date on which drafts joined units before proceeding to Cyprus
Number in each draft






Regulars
National Service men


1st Bn. Highland Light Infantry
…
…
7.1.56
17
43


1st Bn. Wiltshire Regiment
…
…
22.11.55
2
25


1st Bn. Royal Warwickshire Regiment
…
…
14–17.12.55
10
15


1st Bn. Parachute Regiment
…
…
10.1.56
22
15


3rd Bn. Parachute Regiment
…
…
11.1.56
20
7

Territorial Army (Reorganisation)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War which two Territorial Army divisions are to be organised at full scale and earmarked for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and which six

men being punished twice for what is really the same act?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. Indeed, I would be the first to say that this was inadvertent. The commanding officer did not know that this man was going to a civil court. And when he found out he took particular pains to send an officer to say that this had happened inadvertently, and it was taken into account.

Mr. Stewart: In that case, is not the suggestion that Army funds might pay the fine the obvious corollary to what the right hon. Gentleman has said?

Mr. Head: It is clearly laid down in regulations that a man who is to be tried by civil court shall not be given a military conviction. This was an inadvertent mistake by the commanding officer.

Regimental Drafts (Cyprus)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War the last date on which drafts joined the 1st Battalion Highland Light Infantry, 1st Battalion Wiltshire Regiment, 1st Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment, 1st and 3rd Battalions Parachute Regiment, before those units proceeded to Cyprus; and the numbers of men in each draft.

Mr. Head: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

armoured units are to be retained for the support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation divisions.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whethe he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the


Territorial Army and, in particular, as to the formations to act as a reserve to the Army on the Continent of Europe.

Mr. Head: Commands and Territorial Associations are now considering the proposals for units of the Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Artillery and infantry and the final plan is not yet firm. With regard to the two divisions earmarked for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, 1 shall be dealing with this problem as a whole in my Estimates speech.

Mr. Wigg: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement in The Times on 1st February that the two divisions were the 43rd Wessex Infantry Division and the 53rd Welsh Infantry Division? Will he be kind enough to tell the House whether this statement was true?

Mr. Head: It is not part of my duty to comment on, to deny or to confirm newspaper reports. I shall be dealing with this matter as a whole in my Estimates speech and I think the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that for me to deal with various parts of the reorganisation of the Territorial Army piecemeal because of a Press report would be wrong in every respect.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the Minister at least tell us this in advance of his Estimates speech: will these two divisions also form part of the strategic reserve in this country?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask my right hon. Friend, arising out of his original reply, whether a decision has been reached about the airborne section of the Territorial Army, and whether it has been decided that the Cambridgeshire Regiment shall remain as a unit?

Mr. Head: We are very careful in sending out this list to commands to see that it is discussed with the Territorial Associations concerned. That is now taking place, and nothing is firm until we have received their comments on the proposals which we sent out. I hope that it will not be long before they are known, but I cannot comment until the procedure is complete.

Royal Artillery Barracks (Woolwich)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War when the Royal Artillery Barracks, Woolwich, were built; when it was decided that the buildings should be replaced with modern barracks; when the work is to commence and in what year it is estimated it will be completed; and, in view of the complaints of unsuitability, what action is being taken to obviate undue hardship to the Service men who are required to use the accommodation in the meantime.

Mr. Head: These barracks were begun in 1782 and completed about 1802. In 1950 we decided to replace them, but a start had to be deferred because of the demands of civil building and very urgent Army building. We plan to start in 1958. Essential maintenance is being done, but as the building is to be rebuilt this is not extensive.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I visited Woolwich last Friday I found conditions worse than in some of the prisons I have visited? Is he not aware that, with a little imagination and less meanness, tolerable conditions could be provided for the men who have to occupy the barracks in the meantime? Why is it that the amount of money for weapons seems to be unlimited whereas there is so much stinginess in looking after the welfare of the men?

Mr. Head: I am at one with the hon. Member on the urgent need to make our barracks much better. This is not a problem which can be solved in the short term, and we have made long-term plans We are spending about £100,000 a year on the maintenance of those barracks and I believe that to increase that figure too much would be a waste of money when we intend to rebuild the barracks in two years' time.

Mr. Dodds: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give: notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Personal Cases

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War why 22740318 Roger Kingsley Hobbs, having given notice of his conscientious objection on religious


grounds, prior to declining fifteen days' service in the Army Emergency Reserve, was sentenced to fifty-six days in Colchester detention camp, forcibly undressed, paraded in civilian underpants in cold weather and taken to a cell where he was forcibly dressed in a canvas suit which was screwed at the back; and if he will give an assurance that such treatment will not be permitted in future.

Mr. Head: I apologise for the length of the reply, but this is a complicated case.
Private Hobbs completed two years' military training in November, 1954. He reported for part-time training on 24th September, 1955. On arrival he refused to obey an order to put on uniform and was sentenced by court-martial to fifty-six days' detention. He was sent to Colchester. On arrival there he was told to have a bath but refused to undress. His clothes were removed but no force was necessary as Private Hobbs did not resist.
After having a bath he refused to put on uniform and was dressed in shoes and underpants and waited in the reception room while the staff sergeant went to ask the adjutant what to do. Hobbs was then taken to another part of the building about a hundred and fifty yards away, where he was dressed in a canvas suit, which was the only clothing available which was neither plain clothes nor uniform. He put on this suit without assistance except to have it fastened at the back. No force was used.
Procedure to be adopted in the case of men who develop conscientious objection after having served in the Army is laid down in the National Service Act, 1948, Section 21, and we have to conform with that procedure. The effect of that Section is that a tribunal is not empowered to consider this type of case unless a soldier has been sentenced to three months' detention or more. Private Hobbs was not therefore eligible for a tribunal.
I have been into this case and I have given instructions that, in the particular circumstances, Private Hobbs will not again be called up for part-time training.

Mr. Yates: While thanking the Minister, and expressing appreciation of that answer, may I ask him whether he will look at this regulation again? It seems

grossly out of accord with British justice that a man should be punished, especially in this way, without first having had a trial before the tribunal.

Mr. Head: I can recall the discussion on this subject in 1948 when the National Service Act was debated. The subject was most carefully gone into by the House at that time, and it was agreed that this law should stand. It is beyond the scope of Question and Answer to discuss its merits or demerits at Question Time.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether soldiers are forced to have baths for hygienic or for disciplinary purposes?

Mr. Head: It is customary on arrival in detention barracks, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) no doubt knows.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the concern arising from the fact that Sapper John Hugo Clother, possessing a B.Sc. in physics with honours, who was selected as a potential officer, has been informed by his commanding officer, without even an examination, that he will not be commissioned on any account; in what way this man's scientific ability is being used in the Royal Engineers, and what is contemplated in this respect for the future.

Mr. Head: Sapper Clother has been posted to an airfield construction squadron with a view to his employment as a soils laboratory assistant.

Mr. Dodds: Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that Sapper Clother became a security risk when it was realised that his father had been associated with a peace ballot? Why was this man, after having been selected as a potential officer, turned down without an examination or interview at the War Office? Can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his statement that he made every effort to employ this brilliant young man suitably with the fact that last week the man was on cookhouse duty for a week and the week before was an officer's batman? He is a brilliant young man.

Mr. Head: The question whether or not a commission is granted in the Army must rest with us. We have the responsibility in that direction, and it must rest with my Department.

Mr. Bottomley: Why was this young man encouraged to take steps leading ultimately to the expectation that he would become a commissioned officer and then told by his commanding officer, on instructions from the War Office, that nothing further could be done in the matter?

Mr. Head: For reasons which I am not prepared to go into, it was decided that this man was not suitable to go forward for a commission.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister accept my right hon. Friend's statement that the objection to this man arises from his father's political opinions? I think the right hon. Gentleman should be prepared either to confirm or deny that. If he confirms it, is it not a very undesirable principle?

Mr. Head: I merely said that I think that discretion in this matter must lie with my Department.

Mr. Dodds: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

West Africa Command

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now make a statement on the future of West Africa Command.

Mr. Head: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 4th November the West African Army Advisory Council, including representatives of four West African Governments and presumably representatives of the Colonial Office, issued a Press statement to the effect that the headquarters of West Africa Command would cease to exist on 1st July, 1956? Surely it is about time that the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind on this important subject.

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not entirely my concern. Certain consultations are going on with the Governors concerned and the Colonial Office, and I cannot anticipate the agreement in all its aspects.

Recruitment

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what inquiries he has now made into the disclosure that National Service men in Scottish regiments have been informed that the alternative to being posted to Cyprus is to enlist as Regular soldiers for a period of three years; and what steps he is taking to prevent a recurrence of this practice.

Mr. Head: Detailed inquiries are being carried out in the two battalions mentioned by the hon. Member. I will let him know immediately they are concluded.

Mr. Hughes: If soldiers were coerced, browbeaten or blackmailed into three years' service, will they now be allowed to revert to two years after this investigation has been carried out? Is he also aware that Highland regiments are now being told by commanding officers that it is safer to be in Aberdeen than in Cyprus? Will Cyprus soldiers have an opportunity of volunteering for Aberdeen?

Mr. Head: The question of the hon. Member is a little involved, but it is a fact that in this case these units lie within a brigade in which there is cross-posting and that the likelihood of cross-postings is greater for National Service men than for Regulars because of the Regular system. That may have led to this particular situation and the circumstances of the case, but I would rather not anticipate the inquiry, which of necessity has to be made in some detail.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Danish Bacon

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the refusal to renew the bulk buying agreement between Denmark and Britain for the supply of bacon to this country and the imposition of a duty on future imports will raise the price of bacon to the consumer; and if he will reconsider his decision concerning bulk buying in this particular instance.

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement on the negotiations


between representatives of his Department and the Danish Government about the import of Danish bacon.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I am not yet in a position to add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend on 2nd February to Questions on this subject.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware of the great discontent among Danish agriculturists about this proposed import duty? Is he further aware that they say it will cost them £5 million a year? Are we to take it from his reply that the Conservative Government have become so doctrinaire that they are not prepared to consider bulk buying to reduce prices, even though they have no alternative?

Mr. Low: All I hope the hon. Lady will take from my reply is that while negotiations are still going on I am not in a position to answer her Question. This matter was made quite clear by my right hon. Friend last week, and I think the House accepts the practice that while negotiations are going on it is unwise to make statements.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an early and satisfactory reply would be most reassuring? Meanwhile, will he assure the House that the Government have abandoned the project for a 10 per cent. tariff on Danish bacon?

Mr. Low: The hon. Member is asking me to go contrary to the Answer I have just given to his hon. Friend.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the adverse balance of payments with the European Payments Union, does not my hon. Friend think that a tariff on bacon and other commodities would be a better way of regulating imports than having a quota?

Mr. Low: I cannot answer my hon. Friend any more than I can answer the hon. Lady.

Mr. Bottomley: Whilst recognising that we cannot press the Minister with regard to tariffs when negotiations are going on, may I ask if we are to understand that there are hopes of satisfactory negotiations in respect of bulk purchasing?

Mr. Low: The practice is that while negotiations are going on—and, as the right hon. Member knows, they are going on—I cannot make any statement.

Prices (Stabilisation)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have informed him of their intention not to increase prices of their products during the next six months.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Two, Sir.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. and learned Friend ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a plea on the radio and television to private industry and the nationalised industries to stabilise prices, at least for a period of six months, and do something about it?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that this matter was dealt with by the Prime Minister in his speech at Bradford. [Interruption.] I am answering the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, which relates to the number of companies which have given this information to the President of the Board of Trade. Other companies have taken this action, but of course they are under no obligation to inform the Board of Trade.

Mr. Bottomley: If the Government carry out their promises, ought we not to anticipate a reduction in prices?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Stabilisation is a very good first step.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade the new duties under taken by his Department which at present require the employment of 7,400 civil servants compared with 4,800 in April, 1939; and if he will give the increased number employed under each category and the reduction he expects to make in the coming year.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The present staff of the Board of Trade is 7,314. The main functions which the Board exercise now which did not exist in 1939 are in respect of export and import licensing, the administration of enemy property and the


distribution of industry. These together involve the employment of a staff of over 1,000. Any comparison between the range of responsibilities exercised by the Board of Trade today and that of 1939 would be difficult and might be misleading, since, given the greater complexity of economic affairs, for instance in the whole field of overseas trade, it is the character and scale of the work which has changed rather than nominal functions. I am sending the hon. Member a statement showing upon what functions the present staff is engaged. As regards the possibility of a further reduction in that staff, I would refer to what was said in the Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) on 2nd February.

Textile Industry

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current position of the textile industry, including silk and rayon.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The position in the cotton and rayon industry of Lancashire has, I am glad to say, improved recently and there is less short-time working. I understand that the position in the silk industry has also improved and that there is some shortage of labour. The wool industry continues to maintain a high level of activity.

Air Commodore Harvey: Whilst thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that Answer, may I say that he was not quite accurate in what he said about the silk trade? Will he confirm or deny that the Italians have applied for a 10 per cent. reduction in the tariff for artificial silk tissues and, further, whether if this reduction is given it will lead to considerable hardship in the silk industry, which is suffering quite a bit?

Mr. Walker-Smith: 1 should be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend if he would put a Question on the Order Paper about the Italian position.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, taking into account his optimistic statement, he had regard to the Danish Government, who have intimated that they may not be able to take textiles in view of the policy

of the British Government in regard to bacon?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My Answer took into account all relevant considerations.

Exports to China

Mr. Parkin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steel girder in the new railway bridge over the river near Hankow is marked"Dorman Long, Middlesbrough, England," and was exported without his licence; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Low: I do not know whether there is such a girder in a bridge near Hankow. Certainly Dorman Long have exported no steel girders to China since June, 1951.

Mr. Parkin: Whilst regretting that the Minister does not seem to know any more than I do about how the girder got there, realising that I have the advantage over him in having seen it, will he not agree that it is about time our trade with China was now conducted by legitimate methods through the normal channels?

Mr. Low: There is no evidence before me that there has been anything unlawful about this girder getting to Hankow, if it has got there, as the hon. Member informs me.

Mr. Bottomley: rose——

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Bottomley: This question of trade with China is vital to British industry, as I should have thought hon. Members opposite would have realised Can we anticipate a statement by the Prime Minister about the future of trade with China?

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What recourse have hon. Members to protect themselves against the monopoly now exercised by Privy Councillors on the benches opposite?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of general understanding in the House and generally works all right.

Mr. Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that all facilities are given for exporting textile machinery to China.

Mr. Low: Yes, Sir; for all normal types of textile machinery we already do so.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister give an assurance that no difficulties will be created by a ban on electrical equipment which forms part of the textile machinery, particularly in view of the serious redundancy in the textile machinery manufacturing industry?

Mr. Low: Without agreeing with the last part of that supplementary question, it is a fact that the power units in the machinery are a separate matter and were not covered in my Answer; but where the value of the power units has been small in relation to the value of the machinery, I think no difficulty has been experienced.

Anglo-Polish Trade

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much trade has been concluded to date under the Anglo-Polish Trade Agreement of November, 1954; and what proportion this is of the amount contemplated under the Agreement.

Mr. Low: Many of our imports from Poland and some of our exports are not covered by the Trade Agreement. Our imports last year at £29·4 million showed a large increase over 1954, mainly on account of coal, but our exports were lower at £6·4 million as compared with £7·9 million in 1954. There is thus room for considerably increased purchases by Poland. We have now completed negotiations about trade for 1956. We have repeated our protests about the disregard of some of our quotas, and I believe that we shall now see an improvement.

Mr. Osborne: Has the question of the old debts been settled, and are they out of the way now with reference to new trade? Secondly, under Article VIII, there were facilities for credit. Have they been fully used? Could my hon. Friend say what goods the Poles have promised to purchase which have not been purchased in the last twelve months?

Mr. Low: In reply to the third part of that question, I could not say without notice; I could not give a comprehensive answer. As to the credits, the trade agreement sets out the terms on which the Export Credits Guarantee Department operates, but how much credit can be given and for how long depends on commercial considerations.

Austrian Newsprint

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that Austria has agreed with another country to supply 4,000 tons of newsprint, what supplies are made to the United Kingdom from Austria; and what steps he will now take to increase this amount.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Imports of newsprint are on private account. Last year, imports from Austria were just under 4,000 tons, but this year should be around 5,000 tons. I am assured that every effort is being made to purchase more newsprint from all overseas markets, but world supplies are far short of demand.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that from his own Department's Trade and Navigation Account it appears that in the year 1955 a great deal less newsprint was imported from Austria while a great deal more was imported from the United States? Can he say why this arises?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend will appreciate that these matters are governed by commercial considerations because, as I have already stated, the purchase is on private account. I would point out, however, that the amount from Austria is increasing beyond the low figure to which my hon. Friend referred.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: If the considerations are, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, purely commercial, why are the Government still exercising control over newsprint?

Mr. Walker-Smith: That raises wider issues than the Question of my hon. Friend, which quite clearly is restricted to newsprint from Austria.

Copper Supplies

Mr. Lee: asked the President of the Board of Trade from what main sources the United Kingdom obtains copper supplies; whether he is satisfied that industry is able to obtain sufficient for its requirements; what is the stock position; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The main sources are Northern Rhodesia, Canada, Chile and the United States. I have no reason to suppose that industry is unable to


obtain sufficient copper for its requirements. Stocks with the trade were about 78,000 tons at the end of November, amounting to two months' requirements.

Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that the vast increases in manufacturing potential which have taken place, and will continue to take place, are jeopardising the supply of vital raw material of many types, including, for example, nickel? Is he further aware that for supplies of copper we are dependent upon imports from the dollar area and that there is no guarantee that, with increasing manufacturing potential, that supply will last much longer? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to examine the position of scarce raw materials in a far more detailed manner than any reply so far has indicated is being done?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Any suggestion or contribution from the hon. Member will, of course, be closely and sympathetically examined. The hon. Member will appreciate that the largest supplier of copper is, in fact, Rhodesia.

Canned Salmon

Mr. Hunter: asked the President of the Hoard of Trade the approximate value of timed salmon from Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the six months ended 31st December, 1955.

Mr. Low: The figures are £1,262,000 from Canada and £107,000 from the Soviet Union, but the main part of imports of canned salmon from the Soviet Union was received in the first half of the year, not the second.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister satisfied that there is a fair distribution of tinned salmon in the shops? 1 receive a large number of complaints from people that it is seldom seen in the shops.

Mr. Low: That is quite another question. The Question relates to the value of imports and does not even refer to the imports from Japan, which are quite considerable under the new trade agreement.

Flax Mill, Uckfield

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to close down the Sussex flax mill; what plans he has for the future use of the

building; and how many workers will then be employed there.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend expects the flax mill at Five Ash Down, Uckfield, Sussex, to close not later than 30th June, 1956. Discussions are in progress on the disposal of the property. I am not yet in a position to say to what use it will be put or how many workers will be employed there after the work of processing flax has ceased.

Mr. Jeger: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the employment difficulty in rural areas as these mills close down might occasion difficulty to the workers who are displaced? Will he ensure that adequate notice is given of the Government's intention to close down the mill so that the workers can look elsewhere for other jobs?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As I think the hon. Member knows, notice was given as long ago as 31st August, 1954, in regard to the closing of this and other flax mills. With regard to the employment position in this area, my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet), who is the Member for the constituency in which the mill is situated, has already made a constructive and practical approach in regard to this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Double Taxation Relief (Indian Agreement)

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will enter into negotiations with India for a double taxation relief agreement whereby estate duty paid in India will be allowed against estate payable in the United Kingdom upon Indian assets of a person dying domiciled in the United Kingdom.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Negotiations on this subject took place last month and I hope that the resulting agreement will be signed shortly.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give great satisfaction? In the negotiations, will he call attention to the satisfactory arrangements which this country has on this subject with the United States, the Netherlands, the Union of South Africa and Canada?

Entertainments Duty

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will use a part of the accumulating revenue surplus to reduce the level of entertainments tax on cinemas.

Mr. H. Macmillan: If I were to give either a positive or negative reply I should be in grave danger of anticipating my Budget statement.

Mr. Swingler: While I thank the Chancellor for that reply, which at any rate does not seem to exclude the suggestion contained in my Question, has he taken note of the rising figures of bankruptcies amongst small cinema proprietors? Will he take this fact into account when considering his Budget statement?

Mr. Macmillan: I will take all relevant facts into account.

Captain Duncan: In considering his Budget statement, will my right hon. Friend consider suggestions by me to alter the system of tax in order to help the small cinema?

Mr. Macmillan: I will be very happy to consider all suggestions.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Including postwar credits?

Mr. Daines: Has the Chancellor considered the rumour that he will apply a tax on tiddly-winks?

Mr. Macmillan: I should not like to get into these grave controversies.

Control of Borrowing Act

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to state what action he has taken as a result of the contravention of the Control of Borrowing Act, 1947, to which his attention was called by the Report of the Board of Trade Inspector on the affairs of the Chinese Mining and Engineering Company Limited.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The papers relating to this case have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration.

Mr. Jenkins: Do I understand from the Chancellor that no decision has yet been taken? It is more than three months since I last asked his predecessor about

the position, and I was then told that the matter was being considered. Ought it not to be hurried up?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that if the hon. Member reads my reply carefully he will see that it would not be proper for me to add anything.

Purchase Tax (Dustbins)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the resolution of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, sent to his Department, concerning the £900 increase in expenditure on dustbins in the current financial year due to the incidence of Purchase Tax; and what reply he will make to this protest.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. The council were informed that I would take note of the resolution.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council cannot be very impressed with Treasury requests to reduce expenditure when the Government increase the council's expenditure by imposing taxes on necessities?

Egyptian Sterling Balances (Releases)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the sum released under agreements made between this country and Egypt from sterling balances to Egypt from 1945 to 1951 and from 1951 to the latest convenient date, respectively.

Mr. H. Macmillan: One hundred and sixty-two million pounds were released between 14th July, 1947, when Egypt's balances were blocked, and 31st October, 1951. Ninety-four million pounds were released between November, 1951, and 3rd January, 1956.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does not this Answer show that this Government have been far less generous in releasing Egyptian balances than were the late Government, and that, in addition, considerable economic advantages have been gained? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that among these economic advantages he has gained is the release for this country from paying sterling which is paid in turn by Egypt to ex-enemy countries for redemption of their bonds?

Mr. Macmillan: This is a matter in which a great number of considerations have to be taken into account. Releases are governed by agreements made on different dates, and I should not like to be drawn into any conclusions other than those which can be made by hon. Members from the figures which I have given.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Chancellor say how much is still outstanding in regard to Egypt?

Mr. Macmillan: Not without notice.

U.S. and Canadian Loans (Repayments)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total of repayments made since 1951 of sums borrowed from the United States of America and Canada in the immediate post-war years; and how much still remains to be paid.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The total payments made since 1951 to date in respect of these loans amount to 1885 million Canadian dollars for interest and principal on the Canadian loan, and 7274 million United States dollars for interest and principal on the United States loans. The total remaining to be paid is 1,6970 million Canadian dollars for interest and principal on the Canadian loan and 6,796·2 million United States dollars for interest and principal on the United States loans.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to get these figures across to the country, since they show not only what has been paid but what remains to be paid for the nine months of frittering away by hon. and right hon. Members opposite of these loans?

Mr. H. Wilson: In case the Chancellor should be considering that partisan and ill-informed comment of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that these loans would not have been necessary but for the cancellation of Lend-Lease, which President Truman later described as a mistake. Furthermore, will the right hon. Gentleman realise that if these loans had not been taken it would have been impossible to have fed a very large number of people, not only in this country, but in India,

and, so far from their being frittered away, they saved lives?

Mr. Macmillan: Without wishing to enter into controversy, perhaps we might all agree that these loans have been incurred, this money has been spent and this immense burden hangs over us for many years to come, and we have to carry out our affairs in such a way as to be able to shoulder it.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain to the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) that large repayments were made in the immediate post-war years of dollar loans made during the war?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the additional burden of repayment in terms of sterling arising from the devaluation of sterling in 1949 to the latest convenient date and to the date of final redemption, respectively, of the United States and Canadian loans granted to this country in the immediate post-war years.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The service of these loans is paid in dollars. The sterling cost to the Exchequer of the dollar payments made since September, 1949, would have been approximately £100 million less if the dollars had been purchased at the rate of exchange prevailing in 1946. The corresponding figure for the period from September, 1949, to complete repayment would, on the same assumptions, be approximately £1,000 million.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is not this another perfect example of the legacies that were left to the present Government by hon. and right hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, but it will stimulate us to try to bear them.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further approach has been made to the United States or Canadian Governments over the currency or conditions of the repayment of their loans.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As regards the currency of repayment, no approach has been made to these Governments since publication of the Exchange of Notes of


April, 1952 (Cmd. 8586). As regards other conditions, exchanges have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States. We have kept the Canadian Government informed of these exchanges.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some statement on the progress of these negotiations and look at the Answer given by his predecessor, I think early in December, which indicated that the Government were going to consider raising the matter of the currency which is repayable?

Mr. Macmillan: Both of these are rather complicated questions, and the first is a matter of delicate negotiations in which, as the hon. Member knows, many problems are involved of our politics and of American politics particularly. The second question is highly technical, and unless the sterling repaid was either blocked or provided for in some particular way there would be no real relief.

Public Service Pensioners

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement on the Government's review of the financial position of those who have retired from the Armed Services, the Civil Service, the National Health Service, the teaching profession, the police, including those who served in India, the fire services, and the local authorities.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the terms of the Pensions (Increase) Bill published yesterday.

Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be general satisfaction at the fact that those people, who have given so many years' service to the country, are at long last to be looked after rather better than they have been looked after in the past?

Agriculture (Credits)

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider instituting an agricultural credit fund on the lines of the scheme operating in the Isle of Man and financing it from the National Land Fund.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling my attention to this scheme. But I hardly think it applicable to this country.

Credit Restrictions (Sheffield Steel Industry)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the impact of the Government's credit restrictions on the motor car industry is now affecting the steel industry in Sheffield, where the resulting slowing down of orders for parts has given rise to disquiet; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am not aware that the state of the steel industry's order books, whether in Sheffield or elsewhere, gives cause for disquiet of this kind.

Mr. Hynd: Has not the Chancellor had his attention drawn to the very important and disquieting statement by the Chairman of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce about the slowing down of orders, which already affects Sheffield, for which the motor car industry is the biggest customer? Is he aware that if it is his policy to try to reduce pressure for increased wages by creating a buffer of unemployment he will create more trouble than it is worth?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not, of course, accept the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, which is really a statement. It was recently brought to my notice by a meeting of both sides of the industry that the chief anxiety which we have about steel today does not lie in demand but whether supply will be adequate to meet the demand.

Local Authorities (Loans)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of money raised by local authorities on the market since the announcement of the new policy; and if he will give an estimate of the success of this policy in curbing inflation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Two local authorities have raised a total of £9 million by issues of stock, and another authority is about to raise £2 million more. No precise figures are available for loans raised on mortgage but it is estimated that loans raised and already arranged are approaching £100 million.

Mr. Grimond: In view of these figures, can the right hon. Gentleman state whether he feels this policy is working


satisfactorily from his point of view, and whether it is leading to a reduction of work done by local authorities or merely to a higher cost for that work?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that it is working satisfactorily in two respects—in respect of more careful finance and in respect of these loans being raised in a form in which they represent genuine savings from the public.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's experience that congestion not merely in the long-term capital market but in the medium-term capital market is now such that many further loans will lead to a positively prohibitive rate of interest for local authority work? Will the right hon. Gentleman now reconsider the whole of his policy, in view of the deterioration in the situation since it was announced by his predecessor?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. My experience, of course, has not been long but, so far as I have been able to see, this policy has been working very satisfactorily in producing exactly the result that is desired.

Handcraft Products (Purchase Tax)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now raise the exemption limit below which Purchase Tax is not payable on handcraft production.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Member to the full explanation given by my predecessor, in the debate on Report of the Finance Bill on 8th December last, of the reasons why we cannot accept this suggestion.

Mr. Grimond: Did not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor indicate that he might look at the matter again? Is it not a case that the right hon. Gentleman has received further representations about it? While not asking him to anticipate his Budget, may I ask whether he will not give this matter favourable consideration?

Mr. Macmillan: I will certainly look at anything helpful if the hon. Member would care to see me on the matter. I am very anxious to see whether we can arrive at a workable scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Rent Books

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that the statutory penalty of £10 for a failure by a landlord to insert in a rent book the notice required by the Rent Restriction Regulations, 1954, was lard down in 1933 and is inadequate as a deterrent; and if he will introduce legislation to increase this penalty.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I will look into this point.

Mr. Hynd: Will the Minister also look into the question that I raised with him recently, when I drew attention to the fact that these forms are not put into rent books and he said that he was not aware of the fact? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a large-scale refusal by landlords to put these notices into the books may not be a better investment for them than inserting the notices if the fine which may be imposed ultimately is only £10.

Mr. Sandys: I have noted that the hon. Gentleman is pressing for legislation to amend the Rent Acts.

Captain Duncan: Has my right hon. Friend seen in The Times this morning a story of a landlord, from which he will deduce that £10 is quite a lot of money?

Mrs. Braddock: Does not the Minister agree that it would be a good deterrent if he made it known that unless the landlord complies with the regulations and the Act the tenant has no need to pay any rent to the landlord?

Mr. Hynd: Can the Minister tell me what he meant by his last reply to me? The right hon. Gentleman said in his first reply that he would look into this matter, but his supplementary reply seemed to suggest that he had no intention of doing so.

Mr. Sandys: I merely noted that the hon. Gentleman was, as he said in his original Question, urging that legislation be introduced to amend the Rent Acts. As he knows, I have undertaken to carry out a full review of the Rent Acts, with a view to seeing whether any changes are desirable. In the course of that review,


I will gladly give an assurance to the hon. Gentleman that the point which he has raised will not be overlooked.

New Buildings, London (Garages)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent new buildings in London and other big cities are required to provide their own garage and parking facilities.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) on 31st January.

Captain Pilkington: If it is the policy of the Government, can my right hon. Friend at least say that it will be pursued with vigour and imagination?

Mr. Sandys: Everything we do is pursued with vigour and imagination.

Reform

Mr. Cherwynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make a statement on the reform of local government.

Mr. Sandys: I am at present considering the issue of a White Paper on this subject.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say whether he is pursuing this issue with vigour and when we can expect the White Paper to be issued? In the meantime, will he give special consideration to the case of the few, but large, non-county boroughs who are putting in claims for county borough status?

Mr. Sandys: I would not like to anticipate the contents of the White Paper, the issue of which I am considering.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Minister mean that there will be a White Paper containing the proposals of the Government for the reform of local government?

Mr. Sandys: What I said was that we were considering whether it would be appropriate to issue a White Paper on this subject. If the White Paper is issued, it will deal with the subject matter of the Question.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can we assume, therefore, that the White Paper will be followed by legislation this Session?

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Gracious Speech, which stated that the Government were considering this matter with a view to the introduction of legislation. There is no change whatsoever in the policy of the Government in this respect.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT (SELECT COMMITTEE)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to appoint a Select Committee to consider the Naval Discipline Act with a view to bringing it into line with the recently reformed Army Act and Air Force Act.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
Arrangements are now being made to set up a Select Committee to consider the Naval Discipline Act, and the necessary Motion will be tabled very shortly.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this reply will give great satisfaction on both sides of the House? It is most encouraging to feel that the Navy can now keep abreast of the other two Services.

U.S.S.R. AND UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what proposal he has now received from Marshal Bulganin for a bilateral treaty between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply. None, Sir.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would make it clear that Her Majesty's Government continue to support the proposal for a European defence agreement to include both Russia and a re-unified Germany?

Mr. Butler: In view of certain comments of the Soviet leaders on what was called the Summit Conference, the Prime Minister's suggestion was expanded into a treaty of assurance with wide membership. This, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, formed part of the proposals for the re-unification of Germany and security generally, and


were tabled at the second Geneva Conference by the three Western Powers. These are to be found, if the House is interested, on page 99 of the White Paper Cmd. 9633, and Her Majesty's Government stand by these proposals to which I draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

London Airport (Dispute)

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a dispute has arisen between Royal Dutch Air Lines and Pan American Airways and their British employees at London Airport because of these companies' refusal to allow the men to belong to a trade union in accordance with normal British practice; and whether he will intervene with a view to settling the dispute.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I have not been officially informed of a dispute between Royal Dutch Airlines and their British employees at London Airport. As regards Pan American Airways, I am aware that the National Association of Clerical and Supervisory Staffs are seeking recognition in respect of clerical staff employed by the Company at London Airport. The union have reported under the Industrial Disputes Order a dispute with Pan American Airways about payment for Sunday work and action is proceeding on that report.

Mr. Mellish: This is a very sad story of two foreign companies using our British airport and refusing to allow British employees to join their own appropriate trade union and one which calls for strong action on the part of the Ministry of Labour. Therefore, may 1 ask the Minister if he will take this matter seriously, because it may result in B.O.A.C. staffs being involved?

Mr. Macleod: As the the hon. Gentleman knows, my predecessor was in touch over this matter some time after last September. I would not. have thought that the supplementary question wholly sets out the position, but if there is anything helpful I can do, I shall be glad to do it.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of peculiar importance and will he give due

consideration to the fact that up to now the international airlines using London Airport have tried consistently to fulfil their obligations under the International Statute? Will he also, before further considering this matter, take the advice of the Director-General of the International Transport Association on this important issue?

Mr. Macleod: This matter is essentially one in the first place for the employers and the unions. If I can help, I shall be glad to do so, but the only matter that is officially before me at the moment is the question of payment for Sunday work, and that has been reported under the Industrial Disputes Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Aged and Chronic Sick, Western Region

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements operate under the Western Regional Hospital Board for the admission of patients to hospitals under their control, with special reference to admission of aged and chronic sick.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): The normal practice in the region generally is for the patient's own doctor to approach the appropriate hospital direct. But, in Glasgow, requests for beds for the aged and chronic sick and for some other categories of patients are handled by the hospital admissions department operated by the regional hospital board.

Solicitors, Dunbartonshire (Poor Law Agents)

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that all legal practitioners in Dunbartonshire have resolved not to appear as poor law agents for any accused person appearing before the court on summary complaints; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. J. Stuart: My attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Faculty of Procurators of Dunbartonshire. At present the obligations of solicitors to act gratuitously in criminal cases in the sheriff courts appear, under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, to be matters for the sheriff. I have, however, been in


touch with the Law Society of Scotland and have asked them to discuss the position in Dunbartonshire further with the Faculty.

Mr. Steele: Is the Minister aware that this is another indication of how unsatisfactory the position is, and that criminal cases ought to be brought into legal aid as well as the others? Will he press on to see that a satisfactory solution is found, as in this case the innocent as well as the guilty have suffered?

Mr. Stuart: As I have said, it appears to be a matter for the sheriffs, but I have asked the Law Society of Scotland to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Birdcage Walk and the Mall

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Works whether he will now begin the necessary thinning of the trees in Birdcage Walk and the second row in the Mall.

The Minister of Works (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepbum): My Advisory Committee on Forestry suggested that thinning the second row of trees in the Mall should be so timed that the change in appearance would be a gradual one. I am, however, considering whether this should be done next winter: but I would like to see the row which has already been thinned in leaf before coming to a decision. I am also considering the problem of Birdcage Walk, which is a more difficult one.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Robert Edward Woof, esquire, for Blaydon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ELECTIONS, MID-ULSTER

Second Report from the Select Committee to be considered forthwith.—[The Attorney-General]

Considered accordingly.

3.32 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move,
That Mr. Beattie, returned as a Member for Mid-Ulster, having at the time of his election held certain offices of profit under the Crown, was incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House, and that this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Elections.
This Motion is in two distinct parts. The first part relates to Mr. Beattie's return as a Member for Mid-Ulster and asks the House to accept the view that his return was invalid as at the time of his election he held certain offices of profit under the Crown. Under the Act, that would mean that he was incapable of being elected or returned. The second part asks the House to agree with the recommendations contained in the Second Report form the Select Committee.
I do not think that the House will find it difficult to come to a conclusion about the first part of the Motion. As the Report of the Select Committee shows, at the time of his election Mr. Beattie held three offices. He was a member of a local tribunal panel under the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, a local appeal tribunal panel under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, and an appeal tribunal under the National Assistance Board Act (Northern Ireland) 1946.
The first two appointments are indistinguishable from the offices held by the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. C. Howell) under the corresponding United Kingdom Acts. The third office was not a very simple problem, but the Select Committee, after considering that case, decided that that also was an office of profit under the Crown.. In those circumstances, it is in my submission clear that Mr. Beattie at the time of his election was disqualified from membership of this House, and I accordingly ask the House to endorse the conclusions of the Select Committee in this respect.
There is one point on which I ought perhaps to say a few words before I deal with the second part of the Motion. The majority of votes cast at the Mid-Ulster by-election were not cast for Mr. Beattie. It will be remembered that he petitioned the court in Northern Ireland under the Representation of the People Act, 1949. The court decided that Mr. Mitchell was incapable of being elected as a Member of Parliament and was not duly elected or returned, on the basis that his disqualification was so well known to the electors that the votes cast for him were to be treated as votes deliberately thrown away or spoilt. That conclusion meant that Mr. Beattie, the only other candidate, was the only candidate left with votes cast for him, so the court went on to declare, as the statute required it to do, that Mr. Beattie was duly elected and ought to have been returned.
That certificate is, by statute, final to all intents and purposes, but in my view that statutory provision does not operate to validate the election of someone who was himself disqualified. The election court determines the validity of the votes cast, and the qualifications of a candidate are relevant only so far as the court is concerned with that question. The court held that the votes cast for Mr. Mitchell were thrown away because he was disqualified, and because the fact of his disqualification was known to the electors at the time of voting. The validity of the votes cast for Mr. Beattie was not challenged in those proceedings. Indeed, if it had been challenged, the challenge would have been unlikely to have been successful, for the mass of the electors could hardly have known that he was disqualified when he himself obviously did not know it.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Might I put a point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He did not seem to know the answer during the hearing by the Select Committee, when he gave evidence. Surely Mr. Beattie was a member of three tribunals practising in the area. That was known to other hon. Members, and that is why the Government are not recommending that this election be validated. This man's opponent was disqualified. Why was not this man also disqualified by the court?

The Attorney-General: I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would have listened to what I was saying, that the validity of the votes cast for Mr. Beattie was not in question in those proceedings. The petition was brought by Mr. Beattie against the return of Mr. Mitchell, and the return was the matter in issue, on the basis that the votes cast for Mr. Mitchell were thrown away and spoilt because Mr. Mitchell's disqualification was known to the electors. If Mr. Beattie's disqualification had been known to the electors, a petition against him, within due time, if he had been at the top of the poll, would have been successful.
The point that I was trying to make clear when I was interrupted was that there was no question at issue in those proceedings as to the qualification or disqualification of Mr. Beattie. That is why I expressed the view I did before the Select Committee. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) found the evidence which I gave puzzling. I was addressing myself to the effect upon Mr. Beattie of the offices which he held and whether or not they were offices of profit.
Now, the certificate of the court is final to all intents and purposes so far as the question relates to the votes cast for Mr. Mitchell. The consequences of that certificate were that the court declared that Mr. Beattie was elected. I do not for one moment believe that the certificate of the court that Mr. Beattie was elected can, in fact, be held to validate the election of someone who was himself at that time disqualified from election.
I will now come to the second part of the Motion. The Select Committee recommended that a Bill should be brought in to indemnify Mr. Beattie from any consequences of having acted as a Member. If, by passing the Motion, the House declares that Mr. Beattie was incapable of being elected, a Bill with that object in view will be introduced. No doubt, as the Committee found, Mr. Beattie acted in complete good faith. He received no payment while a Member of the House for the performance of those minor public duties. I think that the House will agree that it would be out of the question to leave him at the mercy of the common informer and liable to heavy financial penalties. I therefore hope that


the House will agree that he should be indemnified against that risk.
The Select Committee also recommended that in this case steps should not be taken to validate Mr. Beattie's election. Before the Recess I announced that the Government accepted the Committee's recommendations and a Bill will not be introduced to validate his election. I do not think that the House would want me to reiterate the reasons why the Select Committee came to that conclusion. They are set out in detail in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Select Committee's Report. It is for those reasons and on those grounds that I ask the House to accept the Motion and, by accepting the Report of the Select Committee, to declare that Mr. Beattie is disqualified and to express the view that the other recommendations of the Select Committee shall be carried into effect.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman one question about a part of the Select Committee's recommendations which he has not mentioned? He has told us about there being no recommendation to validate the election and about an indemnity to protect Mr. Beattie from the common informer. However, there is another recommendation about which the Attorney-General has said nothing. It was that Mr. Beattie should be allowed to return the salary which he received as a Member of the House. Would the Attorney-General care to say a word about that?

The Attorney-General: The recommendation of the Select Committee was that a Bill should be brought in to indemnify Mr. Beattie from any consequences of having acted as a Member of Parliament from the time of his election, until the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is not necessary to indemnify him from any liability to repay his salary which he received during that period, for instance, as no proceedings would lie to recover it.

Mr. Silverman: Why cannot he return it?

The Attorney-General: That is a matter for him.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question? When he said that he accepted the

recommendations of the Report, did he include therein paragraph 11, which says:
Your Committee have been impressed, during their examination of several recent cases, by the complex problems presented not only by the law in its present state, but by the changed and changing circumstances under which public service is now rendered. In the light of the growing body of experience which has arisen during this Parliament, your Committee consider that these changed circumstances should be fully recognised and dealt with before Parliament parts with the House of Commons Disqualification Bill now under consideration."?

The Attorney-General: That is not phrased in the form of a recommendation, but I am only too glad to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question. I can assure him that the point touched upon in paragraph 11 will be fully and very carefully considered before Parliament parts with the House of Commons Disqualification Bill.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Ede: This Motion represents the latest, but not the last, of the difficulties in which the House has been involved as a result of the desire of the party opposite to get a couple of seats in Northern Ireland against the wishes of the electorate. What will happen as a result of the passing of the Motion we do not know, but we do know that Parliament has been brought into considerable contempt and some difficulties as a result of that effort.
The Manchester Guradian, last Friday, in its "Westminster Notes," said:
Mr. Ede is to speak for the Opposition on Tuesday, and will certainly not object to any proposal to declare vacant a seat held by a Government supporter.
The Manchester Guardian has no racing correspondent. If it had, and he could be as sound an adviser on future events as is the writer of that note, I am quite certain that the Manchester Guardian's circulation would enormously increase.
I see no reason for dissenting from the first part of the recommendation. A friend of mine in Northern Ireland sent me a copy of a cartoon from a newspaper circulating there. It showed two gentlemen setting off to attend a Conservative conference to select a candidate. One is saying to the other, "There is no difficulty about getting a candidate to stand. The problem is to get one who will be able to sit." He should have added the words,


"With the assent of the majority of the electors in the constituency." That would have been closer to the facts.
Let none of us make fun of Mr. Beattie's actual position, for the result of all these recommendations from the Select Committee in recent years is to warn all of us not to be too certain of our own positions. "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he" cannot sit down. I take up the point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray). That is a reinforcement of the need for a clear statement to be understood by laymen showing the position of people when they are asked to stand for admission to the House of Commons.
The holding of the type of office which has invalidated Mr. Beattie's election—invalidated the election of certain hon. Members on this side and, in certain circumstances, of hon. Members on that side, like the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings), who merely acted as auditor of British Legion accounts—has illustrated the fact, borne out by the wording of the paragraph which the learned Attorney-General has read to us, that the social circumstances of our time have created a series of booby traps for people who have been giving voluntary services in which they have proved that they had some administrative capacity and also, in the case of a good many of them, a sound judicial temperament. For membership of a court of referees, to be successfully performed, involves both of these. A man must be a capable administrator, and must on occasion have the courage to take a line that he knows may very well be unpopular with the people when he reaches the decision that ought to be carried out as a result of the evidence he has heard.
I, and, I am quite certain, all my hon. and right hon. Friends, endorse the statement made in the last paragraph of the Report in front of us, and I think that the Bill, which has already had its Second Reading, should receive very careful consideration as to whether it could be so worded that when the wayfaring man reads it he can be quite certain what his position is. Nearly everybody—in fact, the decision of the Committee has been everybody—who has been caught out by the existing law has been acting in good

faith and unaware, when he was a candidate and when he was elected, that he was not capable of sitting. Therefore, 1 join with the Committee, and so do all my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side, in hoping that very serious attention will be paid to the last paragraph of the Report and the Bill before the House.
There is no doubt that Mr. Beattie was incapable of being elected. I am not sure what was the date of Mr. Beattie's election. I do not think it was the date in May when most of us here now were elected. I think it was the date when the judges declared him to be elected.

The Attorney-General: There was a by-election, and I think I am right in saying that his election would date from that date, because the court has corrected the return from that by-election.

Mr. Ede: 1 am sorry, but I have not stated the point as I wanted to do. It dates from 11th August, the date when the poll was taken, or from 12th August, when the result of the poll was declared, and he was not then declared elected. Mr. Mitchell was then declared elected, and Mr. Beattie, as he was entitled to do, went to the court and asked the court to say that Mr. Mitchell was not capable of being elected. At a later date, then the court declared Mr. Beattie to be elected.

The Attorney-General: To have been elected.

Mr. Ede: Well, to have been elected. Would it have been possible then for a petition to have been presented against Mr. Beattie? Do I understand that the opinion of the Law Officers is that it could not be questioned by a petition on the grounds that this House has now found Mr. Beattie to be incapable of being elected?

The Attorney-General: The petition could only lie against the person who had been declared returned as the Member; that is, in this case, Mr. Mitchell. Even assuming that a petition could have been brought against Mr. Beattie, the difficulty, as I see it here, is the difficulty of establishing that Mr. Beattie's disqualifications were known to the electorate at the time of the election.

Mr. Ede: I am not concerned with any difficulty that might arise in proving the petition, but whether it would have been


possible to present a petition against the return made by the judges, because that might be of some importance in a future case on similar grounds. Of course, Mr. Beattie is in a different position from that of the people involved in every other case, as far as I know, that has come in front of us. Here, we are faced with the position that was envisaged by Shakespeare, when he wrote:
For 't is the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petar.
The principle on which Mr. Beattie defeated Mr. Mitchell has now been applied to Mr. Beattie and he is declared to be incapable. One has to bear in mind when considering what ought to happen in such circumstances that, at the two polls that were taken in this constituency during the past year, the more the electorate knew of Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Beattie, they more they preferred Mr. Mitchell to Mr. Beattie.
In May, Mr. Mitchell polled 29,737 votes, and in August 30,392, an increase of 655. Mr. Beattie polled 29,477 in May, and 29,586 in August, so that in August Mr. Mitchell's majority, ineffective as it was, was, at any rate, 546 votes bigger than it had been in May. To that extent, the efforts of the party represented by hon. Members opposite to make an impression on the constituency have been a growing failure.
I cannot help thinking that it would not be possible for this House to allow to remain a Member a man who had unseated another man, twice declared elected by the returning officer, on the grounds that he was debarred by statute from sitting, and allow that man to become a Member when it was proved that he was similarly, although not under exactly the same Statute, debarred from sitting. Therefore, I think that the House could not expect this case to be treated in the same generous way in which it has treated the previous cases in which Members have been found so guilty.
Now, we come to what is to happen as a result, in view of the powers of the common informer. You, Mr. Speaker, said the other day that Mr. Parnell was a great parliamentary authority. I am afraid that it has been a long time before that has been recognised as far up. the Chamber as where you sit, and Mr. Speaker of his day might have felt that

he could hardly endorse such a statement. It is said that Mr. Parnell was once faced by a man who had voted twice, although he had forgotten to take the oath. He was a member of the Irish Nationalist Party. Parnell said to him, "How often have you voted?", and he replied, "Twice." Parnell then said, "You go on voting as long as you can, because the English are a peculiar race. You are worth about £1,000, and if they get two £500 out of you, they might regard it as a good practical joke; but make it several thousand pounds and they are a forgiving lot and will find some way of validating your position."
I have taken the trouble to find out exactly what penalties Mr. Beattie may have incurred. There were 32 Divisions, from numbers 30 to 61 inclusive, in this Session, in which Mr. Beattie could have participated. He voted 19 times and was absent 13 times. That would make the penalty for voting £9,500. I think that a few weeks' membership of this House can hardly represent an office of profit under the Crown if those fines were exacted. While I take the view that most of the penalties are thoroughly archaic, and have no real connection with modern circumstances, I am quite sure the unanimous opinion of the House would be that a man who could vote for this Government 19 times, and who supported the present Leader of the House through an all-night sitting on the occasion when he managed temporarily to destroy the Finance Bill, has a sufficient strain on his conscience to be a punishment for him as long as he lives. I therefore hope that the feeling of the Committee that no further penalties should be exacted may be shared by the House.
But there is one matter to which I should allude. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), whose zeal for the privileges of this House is so well known—and occasionally to a Leader of the House, I speak from personal experience, can be an embarrassment—spotted, a little too late, that some comment had been made on this matter in Northern Ireland. He quoted from the Belfast Telegraph of 3rd December. He told us:
On the front page there appears a paragraph which is headed: 'M.P. Pilloried over quibble'.


Then he proceeded to read the paragraph to us.
In a reference to the threat of disqualification of Mr. Charles Beattie, M.P., for Mid-Ulster at Westminster, the chairman of North Tyrone Unionist Association (Mr. E. T. R. Herdman) said Mr. Beattie had their wholehearted support.
He told the Association's meeting he could not understand how anyone could consider Mr. Beattie's membership of an Appeals Tribunal a post of profit under the Crown. He thought it'"—
and then my hon. Friend said:
the next few words appear within quotation marks, which seems to mean that they are the actual words used—' disgraceful that a person who served the community in such a way should be pilloried over some legal quibble.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 202.]
Of course, this may have provoked inquiries elsewhere in Northern Ireland and it would appear that the same difficulties that confront us confront a number of most distinguished members of the Northern Ireland Parliament——

Mr. S. Silverman: Bigger.

Mr. Ede: I said "most distinguished" and I hoped that it would be sufficient to draw to the attention of the House what I think everyone well knows without naming any particular one of the five people who are involved there.
This reinforces the need for the disqualifications, preventing people successful at an Election from being valid Members of the House when they present themselves to take the oath, being so clearly set out that there shall be no doubt. I sincerely hope that in the further proceedings with the House of Commons Disqualification Bill Her Majesty's Government will try to get into that Bill—so that it shall be there when it becomes an Act—a list of these offices which good citizens may not fill, so that they shall be known; or, better still, that the definition of an office of profit needs now to be very carefully reconsidered so that good men—and women—and true, who give up their time to the locality in which they live shall not find that that service disqualifies them.
It may even be an advantage to us if some hon. Members were still members of those tribunals, just as I think it a good thing that some hon. Members remain members of local governing bodies. Then, when an Act is administered, we may have first-hand knowledge

of those small practical points which in administration sometimes defeat the clear intention of the House when it passed a Measure.
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I wish to say that in the light of the Report of the Select Committee— we thank the Committee for the care with which it investigated this problem and the meticulous way in which it dealt with small points which happened to differentiate this case from other cases— I hope the House will accept the Motion, and that the Bill, which, I understand, we shall see shortly, may have an unimpeded passage through the House.

4.8 p.m.

Sir David Campbell: I do not propose to follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) except to say that, while I do not share it, I fully understand his obvious annoyance at the wisdom shown by the great majority of voters in the Six Counties when they go to the polls.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has dealt fully with the various legal points arising from the report of the Select Committee. Even though I might wish to do so, I am not capable of arguing any of the points which he has advanced. I would, however, draw attention to the fact that in the Report it became clear that my right hon. and learned Friend had the greatest difficulty in reconciling the cases of Mr. Hewitson and Mr. Howell, both similar to that of Mr. Beattie, and that he found it impossible to reconcile the case of Mr. Pringle with that of Mr. Howell. When my right hon. and learned Friend has difficulty in appreciating the various Reports made in the past by the Select Committee, it is easy to understand how a layman, or someone not dealing day by day with matters of qualification or disqualification for membership of this House, may be led astray.
My purpose in addressing the House is merely to deal with the position as it affects Mr. Beattie personally. When the Select Committee was considering this case, and for some days prior to its meetings, I was in the closest contact with Mr. Charles Beattie. There is no doubt whatever—and this is acknowledged by the Select Committee—that he acted at all times in perfect good faith. He


accepted and held the offices he did hold in order to serve the community of his local area.
The official letter setting out the terms of his appointment stated specifically that
Services on the bodies referred to is regarded as voluntary and unpaid.
Further, for some years prior to his nomination as a candidate for this Parliament Mr. Beattie had not claimed, and was not paid, any sums in respect of expenses or allowances, and, as he pointed out when giving evidence before the Select Committee, even if he had claimed them he would not have been eligible to draw them.
There are two points in the Select Committee's Report to which I should like to draw attention. Paragraph 8 says:
The question of disqualification must have been a prominent issue at the Mid-Ulster by-election. …
It certainly was, but it was a question of disqualification because the successful candidate—Mr. Mitchell—was a convicted felon, serving a term of imprisonment for an act of violence against the State. In my view, such a disqualification would not suggest to anybody that a person holding the offices held by Mr. Beattie would be disqualified from being a Member of this House. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, 1 trust that all hon. Members will agree that no blame whatever can attach to Mr. Beattie.
The other point to which I wish to refer relates to the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 11 of its Report. This has already been referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Member for South Shields, and I fully share the Committee's view that it is essential that before the Bill finally passes through the House it should be so worded as to put an end, once and for all, to any doubts about the circumstances which render a candidate qualified to take his seat in this House, or disqualified from doing so. I trust that before the end of this Session the Government will introduce legislation to render it impossible for a convicted felon, serving a term of imprisonment, to be nominated as a candidate for representation in this House.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The rather lamentable story of which the House is now considering the latest, but probably not the last, chapter, began on the occasion when the Government moved a Motion declaring vacant the Mid-Ulster seat which, so far as the votes were concerned, at any rate, had been won by Mr. Mitchell.
It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that I then advised the House not to accept that Motion. I suggested that the House would best consult its own dignity by ignoring the matter altogether and leaving it, for better or worse, as the electors of Mid-Ulster had left it. When one considers everything that has happened since, I think I am entitled to say that that advice was not wholly mistaken. Let us consider what has, in fact, happened. We declared the seat vacant, a writ was issued, and Mr. Mitchell—as everybody knew in advance would be the case—was re-elected, this time by a rather increased majority, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has pointed out.
On that occasion his defeated opponent decided to do what he had deliberately and advisedly decided not to do upon the previous occasion. The petition which he brought against Mr. Mitchell's election in August could have been brought in May. I believe that at the time of our first debate upon the matter we were told that he had decided not to take that course in May. However, upon this occasion he did so, and went to a court in Northern Ireland from which he sought a declaration that his successful opponent was disqualified by Statute from being either a candidate or a Member of the House of Commons.
As we now know, upon that occasion Mr. Beattie had no right whatever to be heard. It is all very well to say— and it is true as far as it goes—that the question of the validity of the votes cast in Mr. Beattie's favour was not in issue in that court, but, whether or not that is so, the situation was that the unsuccessful candidate, being himself disqualified by Statute from standing, claimed that the successful candidate was also disqualified by another Statute from standing—and he won. One disqualified Member was, therefore, unseated and replaced by another disqualified Member.
I would invite your attention for a moment only, Mr. Speaker, to what subsequently occurred. The appropriate Minister tabled a Motion in this House declaring that Mr. Beattie was duly elected. The ground upon which he invited the House to accept that proposition was the certificate of the High Court which, by the Statute, is expressed to be conclusive, to all intents and purposes. Upon that occasion I again ventured to offer to the House reasons why the Motion should not be accepted. We then found ourselves in an extremely anomalous situation. We were advised by you, Mr. Speaker, that while it was perfectly in order to oppose the Motion, to vote against it and, ex hypothesi to defeat it, it was impossible to give any reasons in debate for opposing or not passing it. As you said, Mr. Speaker—I am not quoting you verbatim—it was impossible to imagine any reason which would be in order for discussion upon that occasion.
It now seems that there was a reason after all. The Motion recognised the fact that a man had been declared by the High Court to be a Member of this House but, as we now know, he was not entitled to be a Member. He was disqualified. He was not merely not a Member, in spite of the High Court certificate; he was not even a valid candidate.
The whole situation has brought the House and Parliamentary institutions—I will not say "into contempt"—into a position where they have, at any rate, lost moral authority. Representative, democratic Parliamentary institutions derive no credit from it at all. That is due to neglect by this House of two plain, simple, elementary principles. The first is that the right of a majority in a constituency to determine who shall represent the constituency in the House of Commons includes the right to decide that nobody shall do so. If a majority of qualified electors in Mid-Ulster decide that they want to elect a man, not merely who is in gaol and could not come to the House of Commons but who had fought his election campaign on the express basis that even if he were free to come he would not come, and do so with their eyes open, they must be held to have expressed a democratic preference against being represented in the Imperial House of Commons.
I am not saying a single word on the merits of their decision or whether it is

desirable. That is not my business or the business of anybody here The House of Commons does itself and the principle of Parliamentary representation no good by insisting that a constituency which has decided that it does not want to send a representative here shall send somebody else who manifestly does not represent it at all. I do not know what the position may be in the next by-election in Mid-Ulster, but I hope that after the history of the last few months we shall decide that we had better let ill alone.
What is the other principle that was ignored? The reasons which prompted the House of Commons to declare a man incapable of sitting in it if he held an office of profit under the Crown are well known, though, in the opinion of most hon. Members and of the vast majority of the public who know about it, it is applied under the existing law in a wide variety of trivial cases where it need never be applied at all. We should not allow that fact to obscure the main object of the original disqualification, which was to prevent the Government of the day from making their position in the House of Commons easier by having a number of Members dependent upon them for profit, or indeed for office. It was an Act against placemen. I am among those who think that we ought to do a great deal to amend and clarify the law, but the principle on which the law is founded is essential and necessary, and will become all the more necessary by cutting off the extravagant excrescences to which it has become customary to deem that it applies.
The other Statute, which disqualifies a man who is serving a sentence for felony, is also based upon a perfectly understandable principle. It hardly needs stating. I said on the first occasion and I venture to repeat now that it is not for the House of Commons and certainly not for the Queen's Bench Divisional Court to distinguish between one Statute and another because it attributes to one a degree more of validity than it does to the other. When Mr. Mitchell's case first came before the House I suggested that it ought to go to a Select Committee like all the other cases; that there was nothing automatic about it; that the Statute was exactly the same in both cases; and that the House could, if it chose, validate an invalid election, whether the invalidity was under one Act


or under the other and we were wrong to try to distinguish between them.
To those who said that a trivial office of profit was one thing and felony was quite another, I replied then as I reply now that it is a mistake to assume that all felonies are the same. It has been said repeatedly here that Mr. Beattie acted in perfect good faith throughout. No doubt he did. I hope no one will smile when I say there is no evidence whatever to show that Mr. Mitchell did not act in equal good faith throughout. You may think him wholly and disastrously wrong and misguided in what he did, but he did not do it for profit or for any selfish, unworthy motive. A man does not do a thing like that and go to gaol on political grounds for a long time without deserving some recognition, some tribute of respect from all of us.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Was it on political grounds or criminal grounds?

Mr. Silverman: I find the antithesis unreal. Some political grounds are criminal. This one was. Some criminal grounds may be political. We are not entitled to distinguish. The Act in one case says, "If you do it, you are disqualified," and the Act in the other case says, "If you do it, you are disqualified." The House must treat both Statutes as involving an automatic prohibition, or must in both cases allow distinctions to be made between one case and another. We are not entitled, and it is not reasonable to claim, to draw distinctions between one case under one Statute and not under the other Statute. If we do it, we land ourselves, as the House has landed itself, in the muddle in which we have been ever since.
There might be a great deal to be said for altering one Statute or altering the other Statute. I welcome, as everybody who has spoken has welcomed, that part of the Select Committee's Report which invites the House not to pass the Disqualification Bill which is before us without clearing up anomalies, but while the Statute remains the law of the land the House of Commons must apply it in exactly the same way as with any other Statute. If the law is wrong let us change it. We are not entitled to act as if it were not and leave the Act unamended on the

Statute Book. That is all that I want to say about the general issue.
On the particular case with which we are concerned, I should like to say this. In most of the other cases with which the House has had to deal where we have passed validating Statutes and indemnity Statutes there has been overwhelming reason to believe that the Member concerned acted not only in good faith, which I concede completely to Mr. Beattie in this case, but also in complete ignorance of what was the position. With all respect to the Attorney-General and to the recommendations of the Select Committee, that really cannot be claimed in this case.
The Attorney-General, replying to an intervention this afternoon, said that if Mr. Beattie's election had been challenged in the High Court of Northern Ireland, one of the two issues might not have been decided in favour of the challenger. He reminded us that there were two issues—? one was whether the man was, in fact, disqualified, and the other was whether that fact could have been sufficiently known to the public in the constituency as to lead to a fair inference that they had deliberately spoiled their papers.
I am sure that he was right in saying so in his statement on the law, but I am not sure that he was right in what he said about the circumstances of that issue here. When Mr. Mitchell's case was first before the House of Commons, we had a debate lasting several hours. In that debate this whole matter was discussed at some length and with great care. In particular, the fact that one could be disqualified by holding an office of profit under the Crown, and the relationship between that kind of disqualification and the other kind of disqualification that affected Mr. Mitchell, were very fully discussed.
I know, as anyone can find out who cares to inquire, that that debate was very fully reported in the constituency. I find it extremely hard to believe that, after all that had happened in this House, when Mr. Beattie submitted himself at the by-election he did not know, and the electorate did not know, about offices of profit under the Crown. Of course he knew. Any suggestion to the contrary would be, in my opinion, sufficiently met by the public statement made by the chairman of the Unionist association, the sponsoring body of this candidate, when


he said that it was quite disgraceful to challenge Mr. Beattie's position at all, and that all that was involved was a mere triviality.
It seems to me that, even if they knew, they would have done nothing about it, and Mr. Beattie's candidature would have gone on just the same, because they would have regarded it as too trivial or alternatively too disgraceful to tell Mr. Beattie that he ought not to stand in such circumstances. This does not mean that I am against the recommendation which would protect him.

Sir D. Campbell: On this point of knowing or not knowing whether Mr. Beattie held an office of profit under the Crown and, therefore, would be disqualified, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I said earlier, that I was in close touch with Mr. Beattie and that he had no idea whatsoever that he could be disqualified, or that the offices he held were offices of profit under the Crown. The moment that the suspicion entered into his head, when he read of the disqualifications from this House, he came to me and said that it had occurred to him that he might be in difficulty and asked my advice. I told him to consult the Attorney-General at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member, who knows his friend so well, says that he was so naive and innocent as that I can only believe him—I do believe him —but, in that case, I should say that he was altogether too innocent to be a politician, and certainly an Irish politician. If he really were quite so naive as that, it becomes a matter of some wonderment why he ever got so many votes at all.

Mr. George Wigg: My hon. Friend seems to defeat his own argument. One point which he made with great force was that a constituency had the right to send a Member to the House or to decide not to send him to the House. Is it not on the verge of impertinence if he is now saying that somebody is too good to be a Member?

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is very much a man of the world, and I am sure that he will appreciate that there is a significant distinction, on the one hand, in being too innocent and, on the other,

in being too good. They are by no means the same thing. The point which I was coming to—and I want to make this my final point and leave it at that—is that in those circumstances, while I entirely agree with the recommendation that Mr. Beattie should be protected from the savage penalty which he would be liable to on a common information, I do not appreciate for what reason the Committee recommended that he should be allowed to retain the salary which he received as a Member of the House.
The Attorney-General says that this is a matter entirely for him. No doubt it is a matter for him, but I would not have thought entirely.

The Attorney-General: I did not say that it was a matter for me personally.

Mr. Silverman: No. 1 am afraid that I expressed myself clumsily I do not mean that it is a matter for him, the Attorney-General, but for him, Mr. Beattie.
I think that what Mr. Beattie thinks right is certainly a matter for Mr. Beattie to decide, but I am not dealing with any opinion that Mr. Beattie may form as to what is the right and honourable thing to do in the circumstances. I am dealing with the expression of opinion of the Select Committee, which might possibly influence Mr. Beattie's mind, and, I think, influence it in the wrong direction, because it seems to me that, although not much is involved here, we have a plain case of a man who, on no conceivable view, could have been properly a Member of the House of Commons.
He had been twice defeated in the constituency. If he was legally a Member of the House of Commons at all, he was so only by taking advantage of the legal disqualification of the candidate whom the majority of electors preferred. If, in those circumstances, he was himself not qualified, I should have thought that it was not a proper thing to remain in possession of any of the profits of that untenable office.

Mr. Bowles: He also won a petition in the High Court of Ireland, and probably got an order for costs. He must have cost the ratepayers or taxpayers of Northern Ireland a lot of money. Has he any conscience about repaying some of that?

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to deal with matters not within the competence of the House of Commons, and I am dealing with this matter only because the Select Committee thought it fit to make a recommendation about it. I do not agree with that recommendation, but I do not propose to labour the point or deal with it any further. We may have an opportunity to do so when the Bill comes up for the Committee stage. The important thing to derive from this matter is the proper lessons, so that the House of Commons does not allow itself to be made a fool of again, and certainly does not itself contribute to its own discomfiture as it has done throughout the whole of this incident.

4.40 p.m.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in his last remark, in which he attached importance to this House deriving the proper lessons from this unfortunate occurrence. I think that we must look upon the Beattie case as a thing of the past but, as a Member of the Select Committee I should like to say a word about our work and about my impression of Mr. Beattie.
The Select Committee decided—I am sure rightly—to deal with this case not at all on party lines and we approached it as fairly and as judicially as we could. Although, in the event, it turned against the interests of the Government side of the House and has cost the Government temporarily—it may be permanently—a seat, the Government members of the Committee had no hesitation in arriving at what they thought to be the right conclusions.
As the House will know, our Report was unanimous, and I was in no doubt that we were correct not to recommend in this case—as we have recommended in previous ones—that the House should validate the fact that an hon. Member had not been qualified and allow him to take his seat. We did not do that in this case. There was all the difference in the world between this and previous cases, because this by-election had arisen out of an objection to the qualifications of the elected candidate.
It was, therefore, incumbent—doubly incumbent—on the other candidate who was seeking election as a result of that

objection to make sure that he himself was entirely correctly qualified. I say that he himself should have made sure, but I at once accept the difficulty that a layman has in these matters and say that the gentleman in question would have been well advised to have taken legal advice at a very early stage. Unhappily, he did not do so, and the results are before us now. I should only like to add my own definite opinion that Mr. Beattie acted in the best of good faith, and certainly did not appreciate the difficult position into which he was running himself.
I should like now to turn, if I may, to the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He directed so much of his remarks to the future--I thought rightly—and to the last paragraph in the Committee's Report relating to improving the House of Commons Disqualification Bill before it comes back to us again. The fact is that although that Bill has had a Second Reading I am not satisfied that, as it stands now, it will meet the objective which all of us seek, which is to know where we are.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It is in order to refer to the Bill, but to deal with the details when the Bill is before the House would not be in order on this occasion.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Thank you very much, Mr.-Deputy-Speaker. I accept that Ruling readily, but 1 think that I am in order in repeating a point which has already been made.
What all of us require is to know where we are in this matter, and before the Bill reaches its final stages I hope that the Government will make it as clear as is possible, either by a list of offices, as was recommended by the right hon. Member for South Shields—who was not ruled out of order—or by adhering to the recommendations of the Herbert Committee that Mr. Speaker should be enabled to set up a committee not only to consider cases as we have considered the Beattie case—when they have taken place—but to consider other cases which might arise in the future.
I see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are stirring uneasily, so let me hasten to the consideration of another paragraph of the Report—the recommendation in paragraph 6, page 4, which goes right to the


root of so much of the misunderstanding that has taken place. Many hon. Members—and Mr. Beattie was in the same position—have accepted appointments from a Government Department—perhaps on pensions tribunals, perhaps on agricultural executive committees—and the wording of the letters they have received has quite categorically said that no remuneration will be paid. In spite of that, we have been faced with the fact that those appointments are regarded as offices of profit.
I was puzzled for a long time by that until it was explained by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General in the proceedings of the Select Committee. His explanation can be found in page 13, and reads:
… whatever the terms of appointment may be, what one has to construe are the terms of the statute. The terms of the appointment here exclude any possibility, so far as I can see, of what I might call a profit payment. The terms of the appointment exclude it because they are confined to compensation for loss of earnings and compensation for expense. But the statutes themselves make provision for payment of remuneration, and when the statute has made that provision the Executive is not barred by memoranda of this sort from changing the arrangement and, therefore, one has to consider the problem quite apart from the particular arrangements made with particular persons. It depends on the wording of the statutes.
When that is pointed out my layman's mind can just comprehend it, but I do not think that it is readily comprehensible to the man in the street.
I would, therefore, like to turn now to paragraph 6, which reads:
Your Committee note, however, that Mr. Beattie did not receive any profit from his appointments and that he had neither claimed nor been paid any expenses since at least March, 1953 … They note, further, that, as in previous cases, the actual letter of appointment stated that no fees were payable…They have drawn the attention of the House to the terms of such letters of appointment before, and the Attorney-General went so far as to agree, in his evidence on this case, that the wording of such letters was misleading. This misleading feature of letters of appointment has been commented on by your Committee in previous cases"—
I had the honour to serve on the Committee in the previous cases when we made that comment—
and they consider it desirable that, so long as the law remains as at present"—

and it does remain as it is at present until we approve the House of Commons Disqualification Bill—
such letters should in future be differently worded and that a covering letter should be sent, where appropriate, drawing attention to the words of the statute and to the opinions of Law Officers which have been expressed from time to time.
I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether he can give an assurance that Government Departments have been circularised to that effect, and whether the Government will undertake that, in future, no more such misleading invitations will be sent to innocent persons anxious to do a voluntary piece of unpaid work which may finally land them in the trouble into which Mr. Beattie has been landed in this unfortunate case.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: The House may ask what qualification I have to speak about disqualification. I was one of those who came to the House in 1945 and was disqualified. I was horrified as well as disqualified when I found myself in that position.
During the war certain people were called upon to do work to help, so we were told, to win the war. Laws were introduced in war which we do not like in peace. I was invited by the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Ernest Bevin, to act as chairman of a works tribunal upon which one had to take difficult decisions, often against one's own trade union membership. One was paid a salary but lost two days' work in order to attend one meeting, and thus lost money by doing the job; so how on earth that became an office of profit I do not know.
The farcical situation is that under the present law, under the Noah's Ark set of rules and regulations which operate, people can be selected to do such a job to help to implement the law and, through doing it, can find themselves disqualified from coming to the House in order to help to make the law. It is about time that that state of affairs was altered. If it is to continue, the short list of qualified people able to come here will become shorter still. Others, because they are working for the State or because they have been selected for the various committees in its wide sphere of activities, will be denied the right to become Members of Parliament. The sooner the whole state of affairs is altered the better for Britain.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) on the need for a change in the law. That feeling is quite general, I think, on all sides of the House, and it endorses paragraph 11 of the Report of the Select Committee which says that the sooner this question is reviewed in the light of events the better.
This is not the first time that this part of the United Kingdom has come before the public eye. As long ago as 1914, when the Home Rule Bill had been passed and was about to come into operation, the question whether the Counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh, of which Mid-Ulster forms a part, should or should not come within the scope of the Bill was discussed at the Buckingham Palace Conference.
Hon. Members who have read the great history of the First World War by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), The World Crisis, will remember that when this question was being discussed at the Cabinet, suddenly the calm, steady tones of Sir Edward Grey were heard dealing with much graver issues, namely, the news which had been received that Austria had delivered an ultimatum to Serbia. Then in my right hon. Friend's words,
the parishes of Fermanagh and Tyrone faded into the mists and squalls of Ireland.
This part of the United Kingdom has re-emerged from what I suppose my right hon. Friend would now call the mists and squalls of Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made some remarks with which I am very largely in agreement, but I think he was a little unfair when he said that the purpose of the Petition presented by Mr. Beattie to the election court was to enable the Government to get two extra seats in the House. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) reminded us very properly that Mr. Beattie did not petition immediately after the General Election, as he might well have done, and that it was only as a result of the decision of the House last July to declare the seat vacant that he had no alternative and was obliged to lodge his petition.
The right hon. Member for South Shields has also posed a question whether a Petition could not have been presented against Mr. Beattie at the same time as he presented the Petition against the nominal Sinn Fein victor, Mr. Mitchell. I should have thought that although technically it might have been possible for that to be done, in fact it could not have been shown that the electors of Mid-Ulster who voted for Mr. Beattie were aware, when they did so, that he held offices of profit under the Crown. They might have been aware that he acted on the various appeals tribunals, but, from my knowledge of the constituency, I do not think it could have been shown that they knew that these were offices of profit under the Crown.
The findings of the Select Committee seem to be quite unexceptionable, although the effect will be that Mid-Ulster will have to face its third election within nine months. I feel that Mr. Beattie has to some extent been the victim of circumstances. He acted throughout, as has been generally admitted and very strongly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell), in good faith; there is no doubt about that. The fact remains, however, that he became a Member of the House by demonstrating before the election court that the nominal Sinn Fein victor at the by-election last August was disqualified. Now that he has himself been shown to have been disqualified at that time, he can hardly expect to be allowed to remain a Member of the House, and one can scarcely quarrel with the Select Committee for declining to recommend that his election should be validated. I hope, however, that it is the feeling of the House that in the circumstances it would be unreasonable not to indemnify him.
A little information has been given about how these proceedings started. If hon. Members look at page 8 of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee during the examination of the Attorney-General, they will see that it was because of information which he had received in the shape of a rumour that my right hon. and learned Friend thought he ought to look into Mr. Beattie's qualifications. We have also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South that, consequent upon what Mr. Beattie said to him, he thought


he should advise him to consult the Attorney-General.
That seems quite clear. I would only say that it puts me in mind of the wartime poster, with which most hon. Members are familiar, which said, "Careless talk costs lives." I wonder whether a slightly modified version of the poster should be placed in the precincts of the House. I suggest that it might read, "Careless talk costs seats."
Mention has been made of the position of the returning officer in this case, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South has referred to the returning officer's inability, under the present law, to refuse to accept the nomination of a candidate who is a convicted felon. I know that it is argued that to do otherwise would be to place judicial functions in the person of the returning officer, but I should have thought that some formula might be devised whereby—when it is known that a candidate is a convicted felon and when a certificate of conviction can be produced within the time allowed for objections after nominations have been received—the acceptance of an authenticated certificate of conviction might be held to disqualify the felon, thereby avoiding the possibility of going through the almost farcical proceedings which the electors of Mid-Ulster have been subjected to during the last nine months.

Mr. Wigg: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. Member to suggest methods of gerrymandering in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the observations of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) are in order on this Motion, though they may be in order on the Bill to be considered later.

Mr. Hyde: Of course I accept that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would only say that I have not made any suggestions of gerrymandering in Northern Ireland, because I do not agree that there is, or has been, any gerrymandering in Northern Ireland.
I would once again stress the need for a revision of the law so that at least a candidate at a Parliamentary election cannot be disqualified on the ground that he is holding such an office of profit as Mr. Beattie held, which in his case, as

has appeared, far from being an office of profit, has been a complete and dead loss.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I intervene for only two or three minutes, as one who also sat on the Select Committee, to make a remark apropos of what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray). He seemed to take a little more than necessary comfort in the fact that Government members of that Committee—and, of course, by implication, Opposition members of that Committee—had not acted in any partisan way. I hope that when this House sets up a Select Committee, especially to deal with issues of this kind, such a Committee will always consider matters—particularly affecting an hon. Member of this House—in an impartial manner.

Major Anstruther-Gray: I had in mind times as long ago as the Marconi Committee Report.

Mr. Bellenger: We are about to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Those days were perhaps somewhat different owing, possibly, to the fact that the Labour Party was not represented so strongly in the Opposition then.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am not sure that I quite understand. Is it suggested that the Select Committee which inquired into the Marconi case was partisan? Does that mean that only one side was partisan, or both sides?

Mr. Bellenger: Certainly I think it is clear to those who read history that it was a partisan Committee. However, perhaps I had better not stray too far into the past, but keep on the firm ground of the present and, perhaps, the future as I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question about the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. I am not so sure as, apparently, my hon. Friend is that Crown patronage—which, after all, is at the bottom of these investigations—has ceased to exist. This Select Committee was considering a case which arose under an Act of Parliament, called the Succession to the Crown Act, of more than 200 years ago. We know that we can speak with a certain assurance in saying that in those days there was very


acute partisanship—and on the part of the Crown also. Probably that Act is inappropriate today, and that, presumably, is why the Government have introduced the House of Commons Disqualification Bill.
I am not going so far as to say either that we can define in an Act of Parliament specifically all offices of profit under the Crown, or that even in these days it might not be possible for Crown patronage, possibly through the Government, to exist. In the case of the public corporations which we have set up, Members of Parliament are, of course, excluded from membership, but 1 could think of one or two national institutions—although not Government institutions—which could exercise considerable Crown patronage if it were thought necessary to do so.
I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) that Mr. Beattie was a member of an appeal tribunal under the Northern Ireland National Assistance Act, 1948. I do not wish to impugn Mr. Beattie's bona fides or his integrity at all. I listened to all he said in evidence, and I am convinced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) certainly was, that he was a gentleman of considerable naïvetè, if not innocence. I wonder whether, in some of the answers to our questions, he really considered the implications of those answers.
All I am saying is that in an Act of that nature it might be possible, on certain occasions, for individuals offering themselves for election to Parliament to be able to exercise some influence on their electors to enable them to win votes. Therefore, I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would perhaps be wiser if he applied his mind to some sort of document which could be drawn up and submitted for the attention of all candidates standing for Parliament, and of all returning officers also. We know that the returning officer is not concerned with any disqualifications affecting a candidate who submits himself; all he is concerned with is that the candidate is validly and properly nominated.
I think that the Government ought to consider these points; and Government Departments should also consider them. We found that Government Departments issued most misleading documents when

they appointed Mr. Beattie and other hon. Members to tribunals. If these matters were considered it might save the House and future Select Committees a lot of trouble.
I want to ask only one specific question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The fifth Order of the Day today reads "House of Commons Disqualification Bill: Committee." The Government have had that item on the Order Paper for a long time. I think that the Government should now make up their minds and inform the House—I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do so today—what are their intentions with regard to that Bill, particularly in view of the way in which the Select Committee expressed views on the matter in paragraph 11 of its Report. I am not at all sure that the Government might not find it necessary even to set up a Select Committee to consider this question. I do not think that the Herbert Committee has said the last word on this disqualification Measure. I hope that before we conclude this business today, the Government will indicate their intentions quite clearly to us.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) has spoken, for it gives me the opportunity to apologise to him. When, on the night of 9th November, we were debating the House of Commons Disqualification Bill we got into a controversy about the situation as it used to exist governing Regular officers of the Armed Forces. The hon. and gallant Member's memory was better than mine, and 1 apologise to him. He was right; I was wrong.

Major Anstruther-Gray: I thank the hon. Member very much for that. Somebody has to be right and somebody wrong, and it so happened that time that the hon. Member was wrong and I was right.

Mr. Wigg: I should have gone back and looked at the Royal Warrant as well as the King's Regulation's as they were.
On the matter which is before the House, I think we ought to be generous to Mr. Beattie. We ought to accept the Select Committee's Report. We ought


to indemnify Mr. Beattie. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) when he suggested that we should ask this man to pay back his salary. That is a bit mean. The House of Commons is a generous place. After all, if we said that Mr. Beattie must make up for what had been spent, where would it end? We should have to have a Select Committee to inquire how many free papers he had had from the Vote Office and how many railway warrants had been issued to him, and then somebody might discover that his meals had been subsidized.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said something quite wise. He said that we should not make worse something which was bad. Let us forget it as far as Mr. Beattie is concerned and turn to the really important matters in connection with the Report, namely, paragraph 11. I hope to keep strictly in order, and perhaps I might dwell on what has taken place in connection with the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, where it has got to and how it got there.
I am delighted to welcome today my right hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who have discovered the great virtues in the House of Commons Disqualification Bill. I remind the House that this Bill, this very important Measure, which affects the composition of the House of Commons and, therefore, democracy itself, was planned to be slipped through as the result of a plot between the Government and the Opposition by the medium of the operation of the usual channels.
It was planned to slip the Bill through on the afternoon of 22nd July, not even as the first Order. It was to go through as the Second Order after we had disposed of the Second Reading of the Validation of Elections Bill. Indeed, on 9th November, when we debated the Bill itself on Second Reading, the Home Secretary complained of the action of my hon. Friends and myself and of the wise action of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in stopping the Government from this trick. Today, of course, the Government are grateful that we did it, which shows once again the importance of not allowing the Government, or the Front Bench on either

side of the House, to take control of affairs when a House of Commons matter is being discussed.
This is a House of Commons matter. It is not solely a matter for either the Government or the Opposition. It concerns every Member in the House. I am very glad to say that I have taken some part in it. I have tabled Amendments to the House of Commons Disqualification Bill on fundamental questions.
I shall not incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by going into the merits, but I think I am well within the bounds of order in saying that on 22nd July the Bill was, if possible, to go through on the nod. We would have had the Bill's Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading all in one afternoon had the Government thought they could get away with it. But now the Bill has gone underground. We waited for Second Reading until 9th November. It has been committed to a Committee of the whole House, and we have never heard a word since. Yet I venture to say that there is no more important matter that the House ought to consider than this one, because it opens up the composition of the House and how the House can do its job
I should like to hear from the Attorney-General or from the Leader of the House just what are the Government's intentions about paragraph 11 of the Select Committee's Report. Certainly, back benchers are in some difficulty. Having had the Second Reading of the Bill, we cannot question the Government, we cannot put Questions on the Order Paper, about the matters which have been raised by the Bill. To do so is out of order. All that one can do is to put a Motion on the Order Paper, wait until Thursday and, if one is fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, ask the Government what their intentions are. That is not good enough. I hope the House will be generous. I hope it will accept the Report of the Select Committee and will not accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, and that it will indemnify Mr. Beattie; but the House ought to be told when we are to proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill.
As always, I want to help the Government. They are in difficulties and I want to help them. Quite clearly, if I am in


difficulties about tabling Questions, the Government also are in difficulties because of the Amendments which are on the Notice Paper. I venture to tell the Government that so far we have only scratched the surface of the subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is traversing the frontiers of order very skilfully. Very often, I am not certain on which side he is.

Mr. Wigg: I congratulate myself on having managed to keep going so far, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I can only hope that my luck will continue.
I want to help the Government, and 1 make this suggestion. The original Bill was concerned with the recommendations of the Herbert Committee. That was as long ago as 1941. When we considered the Bill on Second Reading, we did not, of course, know that Mr. Beattie's case——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That seems to me quite clearly to be dealing with the Bill.

Mr. Wigg: I was going on to say that when that happened, we did not, and could not, know that Mr. Beattie's case would arise. 1 suggest to the Government that if they cannot give the House a definite undertaking about the progress they hope to make with the Bill in Committee, at least they will say that the matter is under active consideration, or use some formula of that kind, and that they will not rule out the possibility of adopting the suggestion, made from these benches today and on previous occasions, that they should have a further Select Committee to consider the matter of contracts.
I have managed to say what 1 wanted to say and if I continue any longer, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should be told to sit down. I therefore anticipate your Ruling and resume my seat.

5.18 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: This is primarily a Parliamentary matter, and I assure the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)

was expressing thanks to the Select Committee for its work, he was speaking for many Members on both sides of the House.
The work of the Select Committee is, perhaps, the one bright, redeeming feature of the whole of the sorry story of Mid-Ulster. The Select Committee has considered the matter painstakingly and judiciously and, as the hon. and gallant Member himself pointed out, has not hesitated to come to a conclusion even if it is a political disadvantage to the majority, or Government side, of the Select Committee. One would hope that that principle would govern the work of Select Committees whenever matters of this kind are discussed, and I associate myself with the thanks that have been paid to the Select Committee whose recommendations we are now debating.
I should imagine that the House would be unanimous at any rate on two points. One is that we would not wish to validate the election of a man who was not only bottom of the poll in two elections but who himself became a Member of the House by invalidating the candidate who had secured the largest number of votes in each of the two elections. The House of Commons can swallow many things, but 1 doubt whether hon. Members on both sides of the House could swallow a validation in those circumstances.
Secondly, I think that the House would be unanimous in its desire not to inflict pains and penalties upon Mr. Beattie. This is by no means a personal matter. If there is any fault it is not in Mr. Beattie but in the quality and calibre of his advisers, and if there are any pains and penalties to be inflicted by anyone on anybody they ought to be inflicted on the Northern Ireland Unionist Party and not on the innocent Mr. Beattie.
After having said that, I would say that critical points arise in the debate. They have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in this and in every debate in which we have discussed this matter. The wheel has indeed come full circle this afternoon, and the Government's supporters in Northern Ireland can congratulate themselves on having made the Government look ridiculous.
I should like to remind the House of the simple facts of the case. Mid-Ulster had an election and returned as its


Member of Parliament Mr. Mitchell, who was, and is, in gaol for criminal offences. Therefore, the Government carried a Motion which declared that Mr. Mitchell ought not to have been elected to Parliament, and they ordered a by-election. When they did that, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and others of my hon. Friends warned the Government that they were doing the wrong thing.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has again pointed out this afternoon that the criminal offences of Mr. Mitchell are in essence political, that he wanted a United Irish Republic, and so did the people who voted for him in both elections. By voting for a man who physically could not come here and politically would not come here, I believe that they were exercising their undoubted rights as free citizens, just as Wilkes won the battle long ago for the right of a constituency to send to the House a Member of Parliament who was an anathema to the bulk of members.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Surely there were plenty of other candidates for the choosing who would have been abstentionists and equally an anathema to Members of this House. After all, there were plenty of Sinn Fein candidates who were not felons who could have been chosen.

Dr. King: If I may say so with respect, the hon. Member is begging the whole question. I am claiming the right of a constituency to select not only the political colour of a candidate but the actual candidate they send here. I suggested six months ago that these people were perfectly logical in choosing a candidate who politically would not come here, and who had shown that political faith so intensely as to commit crimes which made it impossible for him to come here. I suggested that that decision and choice should be in the hands of the constituency.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Would the hon. Member go so far as to say that the constituency would be entitled to send to the House someone who was adjudged bankrupt if it so wished?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This argument seems to me to be straying a little far from the Motion.

Dr. King: With all respect, we are dealing with the problem that has arisen out of the invalidation first of Mr. Mitchell and secondly of Mr. Beattie.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Motion before the House does not deal with Mr. Mitchell. It deals with Mr. Beattie.

Dr. King: I must endeavour then to tell the story of Hamlet, without mentioning the Prince of Denmark.
At any rate, in the second election, Mr. Beattie decided to stand. He lost the election, whereupon the Government decided that Mr. Beattie should be the Colonel Luttrell of this modern Wilkes story and, not having been elected, should be taken as having been elected.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Surely the court in Northern Ireland decided that.

Dr. King: I was about to refer to the decision of the court of elections in Northern Ireland, as quoted in the Minutes of Evidence. It reads as follows:
We hereby certify that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined as follows:—(a) That at the date of the said Election on the 11th day of August, 1955, the said Thomas James Mitchell was incapable of being elected as a member of Parliament and was not duly elected or returned; and (b) That the said Charles Beattie was duly elected to serve in the present Parliament for the said Constituency of Mid-Ulster and ought to have been returned.
Now we are seeking solemnly in the High Court of Parliament to overturn the solemn decision of the election court, whose decision was supposed by Section 124 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, to be:
final to all intents and purposes.
We have had before the Select Committee the legal opinion of the Attorney-General that the finality of the decision of the election court referred only to the invalidity of Mr. Mitchell being elected to Parliament and not to the validity of Mr. Beattie being elected.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend not consider it possible that the true answer may be that the proceedings of the court in Northern Ireland were a complete nullity from start to finish because the only man who had the right to bring that petition and challenge Mr. Mitchell's election was a validly nominated and defeated opponent, which Mr. Beattie was not, for he was not validly nominated?
Dr. King: I am not a lawyer. 1 am a layman and I am not competent to discuss the validity of the decisions of the election court. All that I am commenting on is the fantastic position in which an election court has decided that somebody is validly elected to the House, by powers given in an Act of Parliament which states that those powers are final, and now we have to revoke at least half of the decision of that court.
If anything were needed to complete the Gilbertian nature of the election it is what I think is the perfect innocence of Mr. Beattie. Although he suffers because he held an office of profit under the Crown, it seems quite clear from the Select Committee's Report that the only profit he ever obtained out of the committees on which he served was when in 1948, long before he was a Member of the House, he obtained 3s. 6d. travelling expenses. One would imagine that he spent most of that travelling and that the profits would be extremely exiguous.
When the Select Committee discussed the question of profits we had certain legal statements from the Attorney-General, a little confusing to the layman and, in view of today's debate, particularly confusing to thousands of laymen who themselves may be dreaming of some day standing as candidates for Parliament. I quote from paragraph 3 on page 2 of the Minutes of Evidence in the Select Committee's second Report. The Attorney-General said:
Now, I think it is clearly established that an office may be an office of profit even though no profit is in fact received.
On the same page the Attorney-General is reported as quoting the following from the Report of another Select Committee:
A series of precedents supports the view that the receipt of remuneration by the holder of office is immaterial.
As far as Mr. Beattie is concerned, that seems clear from the evidence on page 3 of the Select Committee's Report where it is stated:
Now the actual terms of Mr. Beattie's appointment excluded the payment of compensation for loss of remunerative time as distinct from compensation for loss of earnings.
Therefore, if Mr. Beattie could have got anything out of this, it could in no sense be regarded as profit as he could merely get a sum which he could offset against

the loss of earnings. Moreover, he claimed no such money.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, I believe that the situation in which we find ourselves this afternoon arises from two fundamental causes. One is the disbarring of candidates because they hold offices of profit under the Crown. Here, as very rarely indeed, I part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. In this modern day and age I do not see any danger of either the Crown or anybody else, by means of financial controls of people who may be potential members of Parliament, attaining the hold on Parliament which the corrupt Executive managed to hold for two or three centuries in the past.

Mr. S. Silverman: I did not say it would.
Dr. King: 1 must have misunderstood my hon. Friend. I thought that he was still worried about the danger of patronage.

Mr. Silverman: I only meant to express the view, which I think is still held by every hon. Member of the House, that the time has not come when we should discard altogether the principle that the man who holds an office of profit under the Crown can at the same time be a Member of the House of Commons. 1 never suggested that in the middle of the twentieth century we could re-enact Lord North's Parliament. I am sure we could not do so.

Dr. King: As I said, this is where 1 part company with my hon. Friend, and indeed other hon. Friends, in that I am much more jealous of the right of free British citizens to share with other free British citizens one of the rights and privileges of free men, namely, the right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. I should be very jealous of interference between a free citizen and that right to put himself before the electors and ask to be elected to Parliament.
I do not want to pursue the details of what ought to disqualify a citizen because we may discuss that when we come to the Committee stage of the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, but I would say that all this debate has shown that whilst there may be difference of opinion, as there obviously is, as to what


kind of job should disqualify a man or woman from standing for Parliament, it has become almost tragically, certainly tryingly, patent that every British citizen has the right to know where he stands. Parliament becomes humiliated if year after year we need to have indemnities, and the excusing of men and women who in good faith have served on public committees—service on which gives them the right to claim travelling expenses—Select Committees having ruled in the past that, even if they did not claim travelling expenses, the fact that they could do so was a disqualification for Parliament.
It is clear from this debate and from this set of incidents that we can only end the kind of Mr. Beattie story and the story of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), if, first, we make it clear what are the disqualifications and, secondly, if we ensure that every British citizen has an opportunity of knowing exactly where he stands.
A more fundamental point is the question of interfering with what I believe ought to be the unfettered right of a constituency to choose whatever candidate it wishes. I believe that sooner or later we shall have to concede to Mid-Ulster the right of choosing a rebel, the right of choosing someone not to sit in Parliament if that is the opinion of the majority of Mid-Ulster citizens. Now that both candidates at the last election have been declared, in the old historic phrase of the Wilkes' days, that they ought not to have been elected, I feel certain that Mid-Ulster will make in this third election, the decision it made in the previous two. I believe that the British Parliament must face that fact that it is acting in accordance with its best traditions not when it supports an unpopular opinion—I am not supporting Mr, Mitchell and I certainly do not share his views—but when it supports the right of the most unpopular opinion to try to achieve democratic representation in this House of Commons, or, as Mid-Ulster seems to want, democratic representation even not in this House of Commons, and allows that opinion to be expressed without the interference of Parliament

5.36 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newing-ton and Hackney, North): I agree entirely that a constituency should have the right to choose whoever it wants to represent it in the House of Commons,

and if it desires not to be represented at all by anyone, it should not be represented. I rise because 1 am anxious to speak about one matter that troubles me.
As a result of the election petition an order of the court was made declaring Mr. Beattie the elected representative, and it will be remembered that by the words of an Act of Parliament that order was
… final to all intents and purposes.
I know that the Attorney-General has given his opinion on the meaning of these words, and I would be the first to pay deference to the value of that opinion, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in reply to a question in Committee that there was no authority for the view which he put forward. I offer only a humble opinion, but it appears to me that those words "final to all intents and purposes" are entirely unambiguous in their scope.
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to agree with me that whatever may have been the intention of Parliament when the matter was debated and when the provisions of the Act were discussed, if the words are clear and unambiguous no court would look at the intention of Parliament, and no court would look to see whether it was reasonable or unreasonable. Of course, one would be the first to concede here that it would be entirely unreasonable to read these words in any other way than that suggested by the Attorney-General, but that is really not the question.
If, as I have said, the words are clearly unambiguous, how can it be said that the right way to read them is to limit them to the "intents and purposes" of the issues raised in the case? With the greatest respect to the opinion of the Attorney-General, I should think that a court might well hold that the result of the order made was that, whether Mr. Beattie was disqualified in the first instance or not, as a result of the order made by the court under Act of Parliament, he was entitled to sit in this House. That shows the Gilbertian situation into which we have got.
I rise only to draw attention to the danger resulting from that interpretation, and I suggest respectfully that when this matter is considered further, as it must


be, some attention might be paid to that point so that any doubt may be removed with regard to the meaning of the words.

5.40 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I will now seek to reply to the points raised during the debate, which has covered a fairly wide field. I would first say in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who disagreed with the opinion that I expressed on the construction of Section 124 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, that there has been no decision on that Section that I can find, nor can I find any authority which throws any light on the problem. However, while one bears in mind the character of the words "to all intents and purposes," one has still to construe them in their context and to bear in mind that what was being enacted was that the decision of the court on the issues before the court should not be subjected to further challenge.
The only issues before the court in the present case were those to which 1 have referred, namely, whether Mr. Mitchell was disqualified, and whether that disqualification was so notorious that the votes cast for him were to be regarded as spoilt votes. If the court came to that conclusion, which it did, the consequence follows that the return would have to be corrected by declaring Mr. Beattie to be returned.
I do not think there is much point in pursuing that matter further here, but it is my view that the interpretation which would be placed by the courts on the Section, taking it in its full context, would be that:
… final to all intents and purposes:
was limited to the decision of the court in relation to the votes cast for Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Weitzman: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, at any rate, it is a matter in which there is a doubt, and that the doubt should certainly be removed?

The Attorney-General: It could, of course, be removed by litigation, but I do not think one wants to encourage that— at least, not everyone wants to encourage it

Mr. James H. Hoy: I first raised the question in the Select Committee, and the Attorney-General stated that the Act provided that the certificate should be final to all intents and purposes, and that Parliament had to abide by that law until it was changed. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he replied to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), mean that it is the intention of the Government to effect clarification in the disqualification Measure now before the House?

The Attorney-General: That provision is in the Representation of the People Act, 1949. I should not have thought at first sight that it would come within the scope of a House of Commons disqualification Measure.

Mr. Ede: The 1949 Act was a consolidation Measure; the Section referred to goes back a very long way, I believe to 1867 or thereabouts. Do I understand the Attorney-General to say that there has been no litigation or decision on the phrase since it was first incorporated in an Act, or was he limiting himself to the period since 1949?

The Attorney-General: I could not find any decided case on that Measure or any other Measure which would assist me in the interpretation of the provision. So much depends on the context in which the words are used.
I now seek briefly to cover the various points which have been raised, without transgressing, I hope, the frontier which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) found so embarrassing from time to time. A good deal has been said, in passing, about the Motion for the issue of a new Writ after the disqualification of Thomas Mitchell was made clear to the House. All I want to say about that, in reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who reminded us of the advice which he gave us, and the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King), is that they ought not to seek to attribute the decision to move for the issue of a new Writ to anything in the nature of party politics. I want to make that quite clear.
It is laid down in page 186 of Erskine May, for what it is worth, that:
The House is, in fact, bound to take notice of any legal disabilities affecting its Members, and to issue writs in the rooms of Members adjudged to be incapable of sitting.

Mr. S. Silverman: I did not say a word on this occasion or previously to suggest that the Government were influenced in the matter by any party motive. I quite accepted that they were not. The point in relation to Erskine May was taken in the original debate. The point which 1 then made, and which I think has now perhaps rather more force than it seemed to have at that moment, was that, although Erskine May says that, it does not say it in respect only of disqualifications under the Treason-Felony Act. It refers to any disqualification. What 1 said was that we ought not to distinguish between the two Acts, and, instead of passing the Motion, should have referred the matter to a Select Committee, as we had done all the other cases. Had we done so, it is possible that the Select Committee would have recommended us to take no further action.

The Attorney-General: I remember the hon. Gentleman's speech on that occasion. I think I heard the whole of it. I do not think we should resuscitate that debate. I think that in these cases there is a reference to a Select Committee where there is a doubt about the facts. There was no doubt about the facts in the case mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) drew attention to the way in which this case had come to light, and coined the phrase "Careless talk costs seats. "I want to make it clear to him and to the House that it is all very well to speak in that way, but any hon. Member who holds an office of profit is running the risk of incurring very substantial penalties. Therefore, when I heard rumours of that kind, I felt bound to make inquiry and to speak to the hon. Member.
In this connection, I can say something which supports what was said by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and by my hon. Friend about Mr. Beattie's position. In view of the doubts originally expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, I would point out that when I first saw Mr. Beattie, he was, as my evidence before

the Select Committee makes clear, extremely vague and uncertain as to the nature of the appointments that he held. It was perfectly clear to me that at that time not only did he not know precisely what offices he held but the idea that they were offices of profit had not really been appreciated by him at all. Consequently, I think one can say with some confidence that Mr. Beattie had acted throughout in perfect good faith and without knowing at all, till the last, of his awkward position.
I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to any further points in relation to Mr. Beattie's personal position, but I should like to add that I sincerely hope— perhaps one is being unduly optimistic— that this is the last of these cases in relation to a Member of this House which will trouble this Parliament. These cases have given a great deal of trouble to my predecessors and to me. It is no pleasant task to have to advise a Member of Parliament, no matter on which side of the House he sits, of the perils of his position, nor is it pleasant to have to move a Motion of the type before us today.
What of the future? We had a very interesting and important debate on the Second Reading of the House of Commons Disqualification Bill. I do not accept the historical reminiscences of the hon. Member for Dudley as being entirely accurate. The hon. Member will remember that the Second Reading of the Bill was put down as the second Order of the Day on a Friday, by agreement, after two Motions relating to a disqualification. There was no intention of slipping it through. A Bill like this would never be slipped through Parliament, but I wish that we had been able to get the Second Reading some time ago, because we would have been able to have made more progress by now.
However, it has now had its Second Reading, and we had the most valuable Second Reading debate, there being remarkable unanimity of opinion from both sides of the House about what was desired. Many hon. Members urged that the Bill should be clear and precise so that candidates should know without doubt where they stood. I think that everyone would agree about that. There are problems connected with it. If one tried to make a list of the various categories of what might be offices of profit under the Crown——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not go too far into the subject of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I hope that I am not going too far into the Bill.
I hope that I am not going too far in dealing with the difficulties of legislating on this subject, but, in view of the recommendation of the Select Committee in paragraph 11, I thought that I would be in order, without referring to the provisions of the Bill, if I gave just a general indication of the problem. It is that if one is to make a list, is it to be' a list that is so long that it will be like a telephone directory, and involve a long search before one can see whether one's particular office is included? A precise statement would, however, be most helpful.
I am not in a position to make any statement today about what is being done with that Bill and what its further progress will be, apart from assuring the House that very careful consideration has been and is being given to the many problems involved, and saying that it will not be very long before an announcement, which I hope will prove satisfactory to hon. Members, is made.

Mr. Wigg: When the Attorney-General was refuting the statement 1 made, he said"by agreement"with both sides. Does he still not realise that this is not a question only for the Front Benches? It is a House of Commons matter, and he has no right whatever to come here——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Motion.

The Attorney-General: I thought that I had left the issue raised by the hon. Member for Dudley. May I thank him for expressing a desire to help the Government and say that I am sure that, if he persists in that, it will be most useful.
I should like to say, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray), that it is most important that memoranda which are sent out should not be misleading. Of course, they are not misleading to persons who are appointed to those offices, but who have no intention of standing for Parliament. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that steps are being taken to make it clear to those who are appointed to those offices that, notwithstanding that they receive no remuneration, they may still hold offices of profit under the Crown which, if they were contemplating Parliamentary candidature, they might find embarrassing under the law as it now stands.

Mr. Bellenger: All sorts of papers are issued to candidates at elections. Would it not be possible for somebody to issue some form of memorandum to indicate clearly to the candidate that certain things would disqualify him from sitting in Parliament, if he were elected? Could it not then be left to the candidate himself to decide whether he should give up such offices before being nominated as a Parliamentary candidate?

The Attorney-General: The answer is that if one provided in a memorandum a definition of offices of profit under the Crown, that definition might be entirely accurate, but I should be awfully sorry for the lay candidate who had to read it. It might be extremely lengthy and one might still leave out what was his office of profit, and again a trap would be constituted. We have to do all we can to make the law clear and certain over as wide a range as we can, and leave the smallest marginal area of doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Mr. Beattie, returned as a Member for Mid-Ulster, having at the time of his election held certain offices of profit under the Crown, was incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House, and that this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Elections.

LICENSING (AIRPORTS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

5.55 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I do not wish to detain the House for very long with this small, but none the less important, Measure. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will wind up the debate. Before dealing with the Bill, I should like to make a confession about its parentage. Hon. Members will no doubt be struck by the resemblance which this brief and simple Bill bears to a Measure which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) introduced for the first time in November, 1953, and again in February last year.
It is, indeed, the same Bill, and on behalf of my predecessor and myself, I hasten to acknowledge the debt which we owe to my hon. Friend both for bringing forward the Bill and his pertinacity in trying to get it passed into law. The Bill now comes to us from another place and I trust that the large measure of welcome which it had there, together with the fact that its passage in that other place does not seem to have aroused a great deal of public criticism—certainly, very little has come to my Ministry—augurs well for its passage into law.
The first point is that it is the sole aim and purpose of the Bill to enable alcoholic drinks to be sold at any hour of the day or night to air passengers and only to such air passengers. It is very important to note that the Bill is very narrowly drawn and is restricted to that particular class of passengers, namely, those who are departing from, arriving at, or in transit through one or other of the principal airports of the United Kingdom. The Bill does not apply to passengers who are travelling merely on the internal air services within the country.
Under the law as it now stands, no matter at what hour arrivals or departures are scheduled to take place, passengers are governed by the normal permitted hours. We all know that with the

phenomenal growth of air traffic—and I hope to give some figures in a moment— the only way of spreading the load at international airports will be to arrange services around the clock. That will mean that passengers would be waiting to board planes, or will be arriving, to a large extent outside the normally permitted hours, that is to say, the times which the licensing authorities for the area in which the airport happens to be have fixed with reference to the general needs of the area, and, of course, subject to the normal over-riding limits of opening times.
I know that some hon. Members have views about whether a Minister should deal with licensing matters by this sort of Bill. The Bill in no way affects the undoubted rights of licensing committees to decide in what way and at what points an airport shall or shall not be licensed; it does not affect that question at all. It only says that, if a committee in its wisdom decides that an airport or part of an airport should be licensed, then a particular part of it, which I will describe in a moment, should be able to have alcoholic drinks available for 24 hours of the day instead of the present licensing limits, which, as hon. Members know, are normally 8½ hours on week-days.
Perhaps the House will permit me to quote a few figures to show how air traffic is growing. During the twelve months which ended on 30th November last, more than 2¼ million passengers passed through London Airport either in the course of an international flight or at the commencement or conclusion of such a journey. In one month—August—last year, there were 280,000 such passengers, of whom 150,000 embarked or disembarked outside normal licensing hours; in other words, there were 150,000 passengers who, under the present arrangements, could not get any alcoholic refreshment if they so desired.
I think one can assume that a large percentage of the passengers were foreigners who would find it difficult to understand our licensing laws. I am told that about 40 per cent. of these passengers are foreign visitors either in transit or coming to or from this country, and one may forgive them if they do not always understand why it is that they cannot always obtain a drink unless they happen


to arrive or depart within the permitted hours.
Perhaps jet air travel, when we get into full operation, as some of us know—and I think the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) also knows—will enable one to continue to eat breakfast round the world if one flies fast enough, though with very upsetting tendencies to one's interior economy. In these circumstances, it is rather hard to arrive at what I hope I may claim to be the world's premier airport and find that for a mysterious reason one cannot have a whisky and soda, or whatever one might feel one needed to put oneself right.

Mr. W. R. Williams: When I went to Norway and other Scandinavian countries I found I had to conform to existing legislation there in these matters. Why should not the law be the same for these people when they come over here as it is for me over there?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman has picked out the only areas in the world where the restrictions are something like our own. Almost every other international airport gives a twenty-four hour service, or a very much longer one than we give in this country. One must bear in mind the practice in other countries, where, almost without exception, the restrictions are either non-existent or much more generous than is the case here. Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, I think it is an essential part of the service which a great international airport should give today, when so many passengers who are coming to it or are passing through are certainly not people likely to have any knowledge or appreciation of the reasons for our licensing arrangements.
That is the main point in this Bill, and it is not an unimportant one. If we want to build up a trade in this country—and I think we can build up a very considerable trade and make ourselves a focal point of world airlines—it is quite clear that we must try to provide equivalent service.
I want to take this opportunity of trying to put beyond any possible doubt the degree in which this Bill is limited. I say with all the force I can command, so that there is no doubt in hon. Members' minds, that the class of traveller or person who will be able to benefit from the increased

facilities offered by this Bill are those— and only those—on international flights. In other words, the people who are, if we like, beyond the iron curtain which is thrown by the Customs authorities across the barriers at every airport in order to maintain a very proper segregation between those passengers who are, so to speak, bonded and segregated and the ordinary public.
I want to make it plain that it will not even be possible for relations or friends who visit the airport to see passengers off to obtain these facilities. Much less would it be possible for any ordinary member of the general public, going to London Airport to have dinner or something of that kind, to obtain in any circumstances this kind of facility.

Mr. Williams: I apologise to the Minister, because I was not here when he started his speech. I do not know whether or not he has referred to the fact that a noble Lord in another place, speaking for the Government, said that in addition to passengers there would also be the staff of the Customs and Excise Department and people engaged in various activities on behalf of the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Watkinson: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman wants to make. Does he mean that these people will also be able to obtain these facflities? [HON. MEMBERS:"Yes."] Yes, I agree, and I will ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that point when he winds up the debate. It may be possible that Customs officers may have access, but I will ask my hon. Friend to deal with the point.
In any case, what I am concerned about —and what would cause great public disquiet—is whether there would be any chance of this Bill causing a general breach of the licensing laws in any particular area. I can give the House the assurance that that is not so. It cannot arise from this type of Bill, which has only one specific purpose, which is to give the kind of service that passengers are expecting at other international airports, and to try to increase the amenities and also the profitability of the international airports in this country, which, of course, is a very limited purpose.
I therefore commend this Measure to the House. There is no risk at all that in this Bill there is a mysterious breach of the general licensing laws, nor do we


try to take away from the licensing authority its very proper duty to decide what it will or will not licence.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I want to say a few words in opposition to this Bill, and to take up two points. First, as I see it, this may very well be the thin end of the wedge and the beginning of interference with our licensing laws, and, secondly, the special dangers and risks in air travel. I shall explain that more fully in a moment.
There are very different views on the use of alcohol. Some people like it, take it regularly and think they are better for it. According to our laws, they have a perfect right to do so. Others think much less of it. But I think everyone agrees that it is possible to have too much of either a good or a bad thing and that it is quite possible to overdo it. For that reason, our licensing laws have grown up, and there are taxes imposed not only for revenue purposes but to limit consumption. There are hours of opening for public houses and there is the system of licensing them. All people are not unanimous about this, but, on the whole, they are fairly satisfied. I think that as a rule we ought to admit that those who are in charge of licensed houses are doing their best to obey the law and that the whole thing is working fairly well.
What I want to suggest is that, once we admit the claim in this Bill, there may be claims on all sides for changes in the licensing laws. People arriving from foreign airports into this country in almost every case would have been able to get a drink on the plane. The only justification that I can see—and it is a justification—is that people who have been through the Customs and are waiting at the airport for the aircraft to take off in cases where there has been a delay, may feel that they want a drink. But people arriving and departing to and from the Continent from the Channel ports may feel just the same; and we may also ask, "What about people travelling at night on coaches who are not able to get a drink en route or on arrival at London?" They will say with justice, "Why treat the foreigner better than you treat us?" Or what about people on night shift who come off work at all times? They may feel very strongly that they want a drink before they get home, before the public houses open.
I wish to approach this subject also from the point of view of the peculiar conditions of air travel. There are particular risks in air travel and for that reason discipline is necessary, not only for the officials but for everyone on the plane. It was shown by a committee of the British Medical Association which investigated road accidents that a pint of beer, or three or four ounces of whisky, has a definite effect on people. It made them more liable to take risks and, in many cases, it interfered with their judgment. I believe that by making it easier for people who are about to board a plane to get a drink we are increasing the risks of air tavel.
May I weary the House by explaining what I mean in a little more detail? When alcohol is taken, it has no effect until it is absorbed into the blood stream, and there it is steadily and slowly burnt up at the rate of one-third of an ounce per hour. Therefore, if a person has had three pints of beer or nine ounces of whisky, it takes about eight hours before the alcohol entirely disappears from the blood stream by being burnt up. For that very good reason the crews of aeroplanes are not permitted to take any alcoholic drink for eight hours before they embark on a journey.
So far, I have spoken about how alcohol is got rid of from the body. It is, as we know, absorbed mainly from the stomach. The point I wish to stress is that the rate of absorption varies with conditions. If the alcohol is taken as a spirit and not much diluted, the absorption is complete in half-an-hour. If, on the other hand, it is taken in a diluted form, and especially with food, the absorption may not be complete for two-and-a-half hours. So that for anything up to two hours after a meal in which a fair quantity of alcohol has been taken, the amount in the blood is being slowly built up until it reaches a maximum, and then, by being burnt up, it slowly disappears.
A person at the airport has a meal and a drink. He goes on to a plane perfectly sober and is so for perhaps an hour afterwards, because very little of the alcohol has at that time been absorbed. Therefore, those who welcome him on the aircraft notice nothing wrong with him. But, later, he develops the symptoms of intoxication and becomes a nuisance.
I do not know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you have ever tried to pilot a plane. I tried on one occasion—only for a few minutes. Fortunately for those on the plane, it was only for a few minutes. But I noticed that the machine responded to the controls with extraordinary rapidity, much more quickly, it seemed to me, than a car does. For that reason those in charge of the aircraft have to be particularly careful. Balance has to be exact, at any rate on landing and taking off, and, therefore, safety belts are used. Two or three days ago I heard on the wireless of a person who, when asked to put the belt round him, said that he wore braces. But these belts are put on so that the balance of the plane may not be changed.
Then, again, there is the danger of fire. A person who is careless with a cigarette end is a danger not only to himself, but to everyone else. Of less importance is the inconvenience of having someone sitting in the next seat who is inebriated and whom one cannot get rid of.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: That is a very real nuisance.

Mr. Hastings: In a train which has a corridor one can change carriages. In a bus one can change one's seat. But in a plane which is full there is little chance of changing seats, so that a person in that condition may become a very great nuisance.
For those reasons, which I have put as shortly as I can, I feel that this Bill is unnecessary and undesirable, and may increase the risks of air travel. I would call in support various statements made by air travellers with actual experience, that people have come on to an aircraft perfectly sober and have behaved in a quite normal and rational manner. Then, although they have had nothing to drink at all on the plane, after perhaps half-an-hour or an hour they have become a nuisance and, indeed, a danger to other passengers.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I want to express my appreciation at the very kindly words uttered by the Minister about the original Bill, which I introduced, and which, for various reasons very well known to hon. Members, did not make very good progress last Session. I

would point out that when 1 asked permission of the House to bring in that Bill it was granted by a majority of almost 100 votes. So, although the opposition to it was very determined and very sincere, there was no evidence that a very large number of Members were opposed in principle to what is now contained in this Bill.
I acknowledge the sincerity of the observations of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), and also his undoubted medical experience, but I would point out to him that my right hon. Friend clearly stated that the Bill is a very limited one and is concerned only with those who are actually travelling. I felt that in some of the hon. Gentleman's observations there was a suggestion that the Bill would affect the people who were actually piloting the aircraft. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."] I think it was suggested that the risks of air travel——

Mr. Hastings: Perhaps I may be permitted to give a personal explanation. I said that all those who were employed in an aircraft were forbidden by their terms of service to take any alcohol for eight hours before they started on their journey.

Mr. Harvey: That is an extremely important point, and I am glad that it has been made, because in our previous discussions upon this subject it has been suggested that aircrews and other personnel serving in aircraft might be affected by the terms of the Bill. That is quite beyond the scope of the Bill, and is a poor reflection upon the very high traditions of those employed in civil aviation.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I have read through the previous debates upon the hon. Member's Bill very carefully, and I cannot recall a single occasion when anybody on either side of the House suggested for a moment that people responsible for piloting aircraft, or serving in them, would fall into the category of people who would benefit from that Bill.

Mr. Harvey: I am glad that the hon. Member reinforces my impression.

Mr. Williams: No. I must make this point. The hon. Member must withdraw the suggestion that a Member of this


House has ever suggested that the provisions of the Bill will affect the operators of aircraft as well as those who travel in them.

Mr. Harvey: In a previous debate upon this subject the suggestion was made that the general safety of civil aviation would be affected.

Mr. James Simmons: The safety of passengers.

Mr. Harvey: I suggest that the safety of the passengers and the safety of the crews cannot be divided. Any suggestion that the safety of air travel will be affected would be a suggestion that those in charge of aircraft may be affected. I am glad to hear that there is no suggestion of that kind. Having studied the Bill, I am quite satisfied that there is no danger whatever that those who operate aircraft will be affected.
The hon. Member for Barking referred to the effect of alcohol, and also to people who had been involved in road accidents. The suggestion there was that people controlling vehicles were affected, but there is no question that anybody in control of an aircraft will be affected by the Bill.
My right hon. Friend referred to the position of those on duty in the Customs, and those serving in the airport itself. 1 should have thought that the same principles of service applied to those people as apply to persons who actually fly the aircraft. Many people in other and ordinary walks of life have charge of alcohol at all times of the day, and have the responsibility of administering it. They have to abide by the licensing hours. There does not seem to have been a tremendous temptation on their part to break out because alcohol is available to them, and I suggest that the evidence of discipline and efficiency of staffs at our airports is such as to rule out the chance of members of those staffs being likely to become perpetual drink addicts because of their having access to alcohol in this way. If there were any tendency for them to do so they would soon find that they were no longer employees.

Mr. H. G. McGhee: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who said they were likely to become perpetual addicts?

Mr. Harvey: My right hon. Friend was asked whether those on the other side of

the Customs barrier would be able to get drink or to be served at the bar, and he said he thought that they probably would be. If it was thought that there was no harm in that it seems to me that the question was pointless. The obvious inference was that those persons would make unnecessary use of these facilities. I am quite certain that there is no danger of that.

Mr. Williams: As I made the point perhaps I should try to explain what 1 had in mind. It certainly was not what the hon. Member is suggesting. I implied that the Bill was not quite so restrictive as the Minister was asking us to assume. He said that it was confined exclusively to people who were travelling, but when I asked him whether people who were working at the airport would be allowed to take advantage of the facilities, he answered, "Yes." The provisions, therefore, are not so restrictive as we were led to assume.

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Member was quite right to clear up that point. If this facility is to be available there are bound to be people who have to administer it and be able to take advantage of it, and it was a good thing to make that fact plain.
Let us consider the opposition to the provisions of the Bill, as previously expressed in our various debates upon the subject. Speaking rather nostalgically, and purely on personal grounds, I regret the absence of the former Member for Ealing, North, Mr. James Hudson, whose personality, character and sincerity of purpose were recognised by all hon. Members. Had he been in a position to speak tonight I am sure that he would have been able to regale us once again with his excellent arguments on the subject.
Those of us who are anxious to see the Bill become law fully accept the honesty of purpose, and fully respect the opposition, of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are opposed to any extension of drinking in principle. We see the logic of their arguments and appreciate the principles by which they are guided, and when they vote against us we shall realise exactly why they do so, and respect them for it. Beyond that, I find the arguments of those who oppose the Bill for other and less important reasons a little unconvincing.
My right hon. Friend has indicated the narrowness of the Bill. Certain exception to it is made upon licensing grounds, and it is only fair to the Uxbridge Petty Sessional Division authorities to quote from the letter which they sent to me when I tried to bring in a similar Bill upon this subject. It may be convenient for the House if I read the three major paragraphs from that letter, because they enable the position of that authority to be fully known to us.
It says:
The Committee agrees that certain parts of airports handling international passengers should be exempt from S.100 Licensing Act, 1953, which restricts the times during which intoxicants can be supplied. It feels, however, that a matter of principle of some importance is involved in the manner in which this exemption should be achieved.
That is the point on which some of my hon. Friends are opposed to the Bill. The letter continues:
Which parts of an airport are to be licensed is decided by the licensing committee. According to the Bill, licensed areas which happen to come within the customs examination station are to be exempt from licensing hours. This means that the exemption will follow coincidentally to a decision made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise which will presumably be made solely with a view to the effective administration of the Customs Acts.
The licensing committee considers that the exemption of certain licensed areas from licensing permitted hours should receive individual attention as a licensing matter and should not merely follows in the wake of a decision which is probably made without the licensing aspect receiving consideration.
It follows up by saying:
It is therefore suggested that the Bill"—
that is, the original Bill—
be amended by deleting all reference to the customs examination station and providing that the parts of an international airport which are to be exempt from licensing permitted hours shall be those specified in an order made by the local licensing committee.
I think it only right to read that letter because it expresses a definite point of view. My right hon. Friend may take another point of view.
It is not a matter on which I take a very firm stand, because I am concerned merely with the facility being granted to travellers at the airport. I do not see in it quite the point of principle which has been outlined. It is a matter which we can usefully discuss when the Bill reaches Committee.
The next point which has been made is that the Bill was the thin end of the wedge, as the hon. Member for Barking has said. The hon. Member spoke of people who were travelling in charabancs and all the rest of it, and asked why foreigners should be better treated than us. That is a very insular point of view, coming from so broad-minded a man and from a party which is reputedly internationally-minded.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of personal explanation. I did not say that. I said that that was what people would complain of. I did not say that I myself felt strongly in that way.

Mr. Harvey: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member, and I certainly withdraw any impression of that sort. When such an argument is presented and no attempt is made to say that it is not a good one, one may be pardoned for coming to the conclusion that the person speaking is in favour of the argument. If I drew a wrong conclusion I fully withdraw.
The Bill is designed specifically to assist our travel facilities. Travel is an essential part of the British economy, and it is a matter of concern to all of us that we should give to people who come to Britain and use our travelling facilities, in particular British airlines at British airports, relief from the restrictions which at present cause considerable annoyance and irritation. This is especially so with travellers who come from countries where similar restrictions do not exist.
The hon. Member for Barking outlined the considerable dangers which he foresaw would overtake people travelling in aircraft if the Bill went through. I would remind him that people travel on aircraft from the United States to Britain and have these facilities, but seldom arrive at our airports in the condition described by the hon. Member. They do not behave in aircraft in the way which the hon. Member suggested they would.
The hon. Member's remarks about the extension of drinking were rather alarming. It is for the convenience of those who are bona fide travellers. I appeal sincerely to those who advance these arguments that they are imagining a lot more dangers than exist. They suggest that because alcohol is available outside


normal hours everyone will rush to the bar to drink as much as he can without any sort of self-control.
It is well known that there is a bar in the Palace of Westminster which is open outside the ordinary licensing hours, but I am not aware that a large number of hon. Members are continuously in a state of inebriation simply because those facilities are available to them. Those who oppose the Bill for that reason must put their hands firmly on their hearts and say that at no time will they ever go to a bar of that sort outside the licensing hours. On that purely administrative point there is not a very strong case.
My right hon. Friend is doing a great service to civil aviation, for which I am glad to say he is now responsible. He is giving to our aircraft companies and our airports facilities which our competitors have in other countries. This is an extremely important aspect of British travel. This view was shared by members of the party opposite when they were the Government and in power. It is an issue generally regarded as important and I hope that we may be able to get a large measure of support for the Bill. I have already indicated that my hon. Friends and myself recognise the objection of principle when it is presented in arguments against the Bill.
It cannot be argued that the Bill is in any way a precedent. It is designed to deal with a specific and restrictive aspect of our travel organisations. Because drinking will be made available for a rather longer time than the normal permitted hours it will not result in a reduction of safety in the air. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he has no intention of opening a sort of "speakeasy" at every airport to which anybody can go and take his friends at any time. He has also no intention of extending these facilities internally in the country.

Mr, Emrys Hughes: Why not?

Mr, Harvey: It is not my right hon. Friend's intention to do so. The hon. Member must direct his remarks to my right hon. Friend. We are dealing with international travel. Hon. Members who travel from England to Scotland are not international travellers, although some may be fellow travellers. I suspect that the hon. Member proposes to address us

this evening and I shall await his remarks with interest. My right hon. Friend is right. That might well be the thin end of the wedge. The same argument could be applied to travelling on the Royal Scot or any other internal travel arrangement in this country. My right hon. Friend has said specifically that this facility is to aid international travel. It is not for me to anticipate what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say at the end of the debate, but I suspect that the point which I have made will be endorsed by him.
I welcome the Bill, which has had a very happy origin on the back benches. It is a good precedent for the Government to take inspiration from back benchers, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the observations which he has made. So far as I and my hon. Friends who originally supported the Bill are concerned, we are very glad to see it going forward with Government support. We wish it well, and we shall give it all support in the Lobby tonight.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I rise to oppose the Bill. I think that it is most unnecessary and undesirable and, if I may say so with respect, none of the observations of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) have suggested to me that I am mistaken in my view.
It was suggested by him that the reason for introducing the Bill was to assist our efforts to extend the volume of air travel to this country. I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone will decide whether or not he travels to or through this country by air or in other ways on the basis of whether or not he can have a drink at the international airports. I think that suggestion is utterly ridiculous.

Mr. Ian Harvey: It is not only a question of extending air travel but of preventing it from being lost, for the very reason which the hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined. It is very often because travellers—and hon. Members who travel a great deal nowadays will confirm this—are stuck at the airports in this country and are unable to get a drink that considerable irritation and discomfort is caused.

Mr. Bowen: With every respect, I think that it is absurd to suggest that


someone will not travel here by air in future because of the experience he has had in being unable to get a drink at a particular time. I am very impressed by what has been called the "thin edge of the wedge" argument. If the Bill is passed, I think that it will be extremely difficult sincerely to oppose any attempt to extend further exemptions from the ordniary licensing laws. I see no logical reason for saying that people who travel by air should be given preferential treatment over those who travel by other means of transport. I see no reason for extending a more benevolent——

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I have always thought that there are not these restrictions at sea and on trains.

Mr. Bowen: At sea one is, of course, outside the jurisdiction.
To take the example of someone like myself who travels back and forth overnight—how can one resist the argument that the buffets at railway stations should not have specialised treatment, and that people at bus stations, shift workers and anyone in that category should not have these privileges, if we like to call them that, which are extended by the Bill to people because they happen to be at an international airport and have chosen to travel by air.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a fundamental difference in the question of timing. The traveller by train does not pass rapidly from one local time to another. If it is reasonable for a traveller to be able to get a drink at what is lunch-time to him, and he is travelling non-stop from New York or Cairo, does not that make a fundamental difference?

Mr. Bowen: It makes no difference at all. The facilities for having a drink on a plane are normally far greater than those for having a drink on a train. If that argument has any relevance at all it is an argument against the Bill.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. and learned Gentleman made reference to shift workers. Why cannot the facilities be available for ship workers?

Mr. Bowen: I said shift workers.

Mr. Hall: I was wrong. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon.

Mr. Bowen: It seems to me that once we get this thin end of the wedge there is no valid argument for not extending this exemption in many other directions and making an absurdity of the whole of our licensing laws. Quite apart from that, I think that there is a good deal of substance in the point raised by the Uxbridge magistrates. I understand that they object very strongly to taking out of the control of the local licensing committee the exact circumstances under which the licensing laws shall operate. That I also regard as a dangerous precedent.
It seems to me that if the Bill goes through it will be extremely difficult to resist extensions over a wide field of exemptions from the ordinary licensing laws of this country, and so far I have heard no evidence to suggest that there is any real demand from the people who would be affected for a Measure of this kind.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Peter Remnant: I think that my interest in licensing matters is well enough known, but I have a closer interest so far as Heathrow is concerned which I should declare. I wish to make it clear to the House that the views which I am expressing are my own personal views and I believe them to be not in line with those of the brewing trade or of the party.
I would agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). I, too, thought it would be most unlikely that anyone would not come to London or Prestwick but would go to Paris instead, but I believe that if he makes inquiries he will find that he and I were wrong in our original views. Before I go any further, may I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) a certain regret that we do not hear the voice of the former Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), whom we all admired, and also the amusing and well-barbed remarks from another hon. Member who used to sit behind the Opposition Front Bench. I should have enjoyed hearing him speak tonight.
It is not the objective with which I disagree, it is the method that has been adopted for that purpose. In my view, one of the factors leading to drunkenness is drinking against time. Towards closing


time this results in more drink being taken than if an individual had plenty of time in which to consume it. I think that individually there would probably be less drinking if there were no limitation of hours than there is with limited hours. I understand that the position at the moment is that the country and presumably Parliament have decided that the sale of alcoholic liquor needs supervision and, up to now, that the body to supervise the sale should be the licensing bench. This is a departure from that point, which is that it is not so much narrow, as my right hon. Friend made out, but a matter of principle.
Before 1 return to that matter, may I say that I was somewhat surprised to hear my right hon. Friend intimate that he was in some agreement with the view that, after a rough passage, it was only right that international passengers should have means available to put them on an even or uneven keel as the case might be? My experience in travel is that I have had rougher passages crossing the Channel than when flying. The same argument, if it is to hold any validity— I should not grant that—would apply quite as well to Harwich, Dover, Folkestone, Newhaven, and so on. Therefore, it is a point which ought to be dropped.
My right hon. Friend was also trying to persuade the House that he was not really granting the licence and that it was only the very narrow point that he would fix the hours in respect of certain licences. He did not address himself at all to the difficulty about altering Section 1 of the original Act in order to give the justices in the areas concerned the power to do exactly what he is proposing to do.
Although the number of occasions on which I have disagreed with licensing justices is not very small, I would say that, in principle, the licensing justices have done an extremely good job administering a difficult matter to the general satisfaction of the public. 1 would far rather have the fixing of hours in the hands of a licensing bench than in the hands of a Minister, no matter to which party he might belong.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to explain the difficulty about altering Section I of the original Act. I think I know the reason—that it is the job of the Home Secretary, and the Home Office does not want to be involved in any

alteration of the licensing laws. If there were any such alteration, a number of other matters, such as bogus clubs—that is a matter which badly needs attention— would arise and the Home Secretary would have to deal with them at the same time.
I think that my right hon. Friend has been landed with this Bill before he has had a chance to realise its full implications. I wonder to what extent he realises that he is being landed with it. It may be that he is not being landed with it, but I should like to know, in relation to the bars beyond the barrier where only international passengers may drink, how far the writ of the police for inspection runs. Does what remains of the Gaming Act, 1845, run there, for that means that one can play darts, because darts were not then thought of, but one cannot play billiards on Sunday? To what extent will it be efficient to have one Minister or body responsible for that end of the building and another body responsible for the rest of it? Also, if my right hon. Friend is to make himself responsible for fixing the hours, will he be willing to answer Questions in the House about conduct in the bars? He cannot say that he has no direct responsibility for it. I notice that some inquiries are being made by the Front Bench. Perhaps an inquiry might also be made as to whether there may be spontaneous singing in the bar or whether there must first be a music licence as well.
A number of different licensing regulations are in operation affecting river steamers, railway stations and railway trains, and there are probably others. These come under the Ministry. Because the law in the matter of licensing is antiquated and complex, it is no help to add to the confusion, which 1 suggest is what the Bill does.
I suggest that my right hon. Friend hands the Bill back to the Home Secretary and asks him to alter Section 1 of the original Act in order to make the licensing justices responsible, perhaps on the application of the Minister, in selected places. At all events, we should keep licensing out of politics. I am sorry to say this, but though I appreciate the objective, I strongly dislike the method, and unless I am given a satisfactory answer about that, I shall vote against the Bill.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. S. P. Viant: We are apparently being asked to create a precedent in 'the sense that we are being requested to step outside the licensing laws of the country. The Minister is inviting us to give him powers of an exceptional character. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest that he would accept full responsibility for the powers he is seeking in that he would be prepared to answer Questions in the House about the administration of the licensing laws at the airports. I believe there is great danger in the proposal, and I cannot agree with powers outside our licensing laws being given to the Minister.
Hon. Members have heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). We ought to be wary about conceding these powers when we observe the disasters which result from the taking of more alcohol than is good and the accident rate upon our roads. Travel in an aircraft requires that every one aboard shall be amenable to discipline, not only the crew but the passengers, also. It cannot be disputed that the taking of alcohol, in small or large quantities, tends to impair judgment and undermine the discipline of the individual. In such circumstances we ought to be wary about providing greater facilities for the taking of alcohol. It is already possible to obtain alcohol on the aircraft. That in itself removes the main argument that people will not travel in our aircraft because they cannot obtain alcohol at our airports.

Mr, Ian Harvey: That does not dispose of the argument. It is fully admitted that, owing to conditions over which it is impossible to exercise control, aircraft often have to remain at airports for long periods, and schedules are often thrown out by weather conditions. That is why the facility is required. It has nothing to do with drinking facilities on aircraft.

Mr. Viant: I am not persuaded that we should gain even in that respect.
I emphasise the over-riding fact that we ought to be prepared to ensure the safety of the crews and the travelling public. By granting greater facility for the taking of alcohol we would impair their judgment and thereby undermine their safety. The House ought to refuse this proposal and realise its responsibility. The arguments advanced by my

hon. Friend the Member for Barking on the basis of scientific knowledge should not be overlooked. If this precedent is granted, where are the licensing magistrates to draw the line? This will extend. It has truly been stated that this proposal is the thin end of the wedge.
I entreat the House to refuse the passage of this Bill. I shall wait to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about his Department's responsibility for ensuring that there is no breach of the regulations at the airports if this Measure goes through. In any case, I shall vote against the Bill.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Cyril W. Black: I regret very much that the Government have introduced this Bill. I believe that the Government have no mandate for the Bill, and I regret that they have not accorded a free vote on the matter to their supporters. I believe this Bill to be thoroughly objectionable in its purpose, and therefore I propose to join those who will vote against Second Reading.
I desire, with due moderation, to state some of the objections as I see them to the proposals of the Bill. No reference has been made so far to the fact that the last Royal Commission on licensing took evidence on, and gave consideration to, the very subject that is dealt with by the Bill. In paragraph 816 of the Report that Commission recorded its unanimous recommendation in the following terms:
it was urged that passengers who are subject to air sickness often wish to obtain intoxicants before departure or after arrival; and that supply should be lawful in such cases irrespective of hour. On principle, we are loth to introduce exceptions to the general application of permitted hours; and we are not satisfied that any sufficient case has been made out for an exception in this instance.
I see no reason to differ or to depart from the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which was reached after a painstaking study of the problem and after hearing all the evidence that was available to it.
The Royal Commission instanced one of the many objections to the Bill when it said:
On principle we are loth to introduce exceptions to the general application of the system of permitted hours;
This Bill quite clearly and admittedly represents legislation for the benefit of a particular class of people, a small class


only, and not necessarily the class most deserving of an exception being made in its favour.
To repeat the point already made by various speakers, why should travellers by air be singled out for special and favourable treatment any more than travellers by ship, by railway or by motor coach? If an exception to permitted hours is to be made at all surely the strongest case could be made on behalf of workers on the night shift in industry. Men and women who, owing to exigencies of the economic and financial position, are compelled to work at night, could surely be said to have a better claim to special licensing facilities at their canteens than travellers by air. I agree with other hon. Members that what we are dealing with here is a very dangerous thin end of a wedge.
The Minister, in introducing the Bill, said that other countries are far more liberal in this matter of licensing restrictions than we are, and it was argued that this Bill would do something to alleviate the alleged irritations experienced by overseas travellers on coming face to face with our licensing restrictions. I believe that alleged irritation is very largely imaginary.
The shallowness of the argument becomes obvious when it is realised that many of those visitors from overseas come from countries in which the licensing restrictions are considerably stricter than they are in this country. For instance, it is estimated that a third of the population of the United States live in areas in which, by reason of local option, there is no public sale of drink. Many of those areas are "dry," and the sale of intoxicating drink at the airports in those areas is non-existent—not merely confined to certain licensing hours.
It is also the case that in the United States about half the airlines do not permit the sale of drink in their aircraft at all. Only recently the American Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses' Association, representing, 1,700 stewards and 800 pursers, adopted a resolution disapproving the serving of liquor in aircraft at all. So the suggestion that people who come in many cases from areas in which licensing facilities are far more restricted than they are here and are offended and irritated by the existence of licensing restrictions to which every citizen in this

country is subject seems a singularly unconvincing argument.
I hope that whoever replies to the debate for the Government will tell us whether, if this Bill becomes law, the Minister proposes to pay regard to the views of people in the areas of the airports. I will take two examples. If, for instance, in due course Cardiff takes its place among the international airports and the Minister grants special licensing facilities to Cardiff airport, does he propose to respect Welsh Sunday closing and thereby to conform to the wishes of the people of Wales?
To take another example, if an area in which a Scottish airport is situated had voted for "no licence" under the Scottish Temperance Act, would the Minister use his powers to permit licensing facilities at the airport, contrary to the democratically expressed views of the people in that locality? Those are practical matters with which the Minister will have to deal after the Bill becomes an Act. I think it is right that the House and the country should know in advance the line of action that the Minister proposes to take in the kind of circumstances which I have described.
I wish now to say just a little about the attitude of the churches towards this matter. It is true to say that by no means generally do we find the Christian churches wholly united on matters of this kind, but on this occasion the churches have spoken with a united voice through the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches. This is the resolution which has been passed by that Council:
The Temperance Council of the Christian Churches voices its grave concern at the introduction by the Government of the Licensing (Airports) Bill. It urges, in the interest of national sobriety, the maintenance of the restrictions on hours of sale and supply under the licensing laws as recommended by the last Royal Commission which examined them. These laws cannot earn the general respect which they require for their observance if they proceed, as does the Licensing (Airports) Bill, to single out one class of traveller for special drinking facilities. The Council urges that the Licensing (Airports) Bill should be withdrawn pending the general revision and strengthening of the law as recommended by the Royal Commission on Licensing.
In case any Member of the House may feel that the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches is not an altogether responsible and representative body, perhaps I may mention that its Presidents are


the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Doctor Leslie Cooke, a leading Free Church man and General Wilfred Kitch-ing, head of the Salvation Army. The Temperance Council is representative of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, all the principal Free Church bodies and the Salvation Army, and it has passed the resolution which I have just read expressing its concern about, and its opposition to, the Bill.
It has been said in this debate that this is a little Bill dealing with a very limited point. I concede that to be true but I believe that nevertheless it reveals the false scale of values of the Government on this matter.
During the past ten years, drunkenness in this country has increased by nearly 200 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS:"What?"] During the last ten years, drunkenness in this country has increased by nearly 200 per cent.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Is it not much less than it was pre-war?

Mr. Black: What I have said is quite correct. In 1946, the convictions for drunkenness numbered, in round figures, 20,000, and today they are running at the rate of about 55,000, so that in ten years there has been an increase in drunkenness of nearly 200 per cent.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary has only recently admitted that drinking and drunkenness among young people have considerably increased, and he has expressed great concern about it, while successive Home Secretaries have all recognised the urgent need for an alteration in the laws relating to, for instance, licensed facilities for bogus clubs.
When successive Governments have been pressed to give attention to these urgent matters, the answer has invariably been, "We have no time"—no time for useful and necessary and progressive legislation, but time for this miserable little Bill, for which the Government have no mandate, for which there is no general demand in the country, which is opposed by every section of the Christian Church and which does nothing to solve the grave problems with which this country is faced at the present time. I hope that we shall

accord to the Bill the fate which it deserves.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black). I should like to know where the demand for this curious little Bill has come from. Is there any international demand or any local demand?
I happen to be affected, because Prestwick is near my constituency. I am quite sure that far from there being a demand in Prestwick for greater facilities for air travellers, there is in that area a problem about which the magistrates are very concerned. We are much concerned in Ayrshire about the number of American airmen who are stationed at Prestwick and who get drunk and are fined for being in charge of motor cars while in that condition. One hardly picks up an Ayrshire paper these days without discovering that some member of the American Air Force, which has been sent here to protect us, has had to have his licence cancelled and has had a heavy fine imposed upon him. To single out Prestwick for the benefits of the Bill at present is not fair to the local magistrates, who already have a formidable problem on their hands.
Of course, there is a difference of opinion in Scotland about the relative value of drink. I do not know whether the House has ever heard of the grave-digger who never got a tip. A Scottish undertaker said to the grave-digger, "Jock, do you never get a tip?" He replied, "No, I never get a tip." "Well," said the undertaker, "show a little sympathy with the mourner." So the next day, Jock expressed sympathy with the mourner. The mourner said, "Jock, do you take a dram?" Jock said, "Yes." "Well," said the mourner, pointing down to the grave, "give it up. That is why he is there."
There is a great variety of opinion about the value of drink, but I ask the Minister to tell us that if the Bill passes its Second Reading it will be relegated to the Scottish Standing Committee, for it has a special subsection dealing with Scotland in relation to Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1921. As the Government have been so accommodating in referring other parts of Bills affecting Scotland to the Scottish Standing Committee.


I hope that they will refer this matter in so far as its affects Scotland to the Scottish Standing Committee. I assure the Minister that we will examine it in great detail and will know what to do with it.
Here is a curious Government Measure. At a time when we have been adjured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend less, the Government are introducing a Measure encouraging people to spend more. If one is an international traveller, travelling from London to New York via Prestwick, one is now to have extra facilities at Prestwick.
The facilities at Prestwick are hopelessly inadequate to carry out the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will testify that there are no special facilities at Prestwick to treat the foreign traveller separately in the matter of Customs. He would have to go to an hotel, and I can imagine what would happen in that hotel.
Suppose that there are members of the American Forces in this country travelling back from Burtonwood to New York and they stop at Prestwick and there the traveller who is a through traveller to New York wishes to meet a friend who is stationed in Prestwick Airport. We then have the anomaly that the man who is going through to New York will be able to have a drink in Prestwick and the man who happens to be stationed at Prestwick will not be able to have a drink with his pal. That is the kind of anomaly which this Bill creates.
I can foresee what will happen. The law will be broken. All these men will go to the hotel and it will be left to the hotel manager to separate one American soldier from another. That is how the Bill will work out in practice. I travel regularly between London and Prestwick and nobody can say that there are not abundant facilities for travellers, fellow-travellers or any other kind of travellers. 1 am a fellow-traveller with a man called Lenin who said that alcohol is the greatest enemy of the proletariat. Although Lenin said many wise things I do not think that he said many things wiser than that.
As soon as one gets into the aeroplane in London the stewardess comes round to offer one a drink. One cannot escape from the offer of a drink. It is shoved under one's nose before one is offered a

sandwich or a cup of tea. There is a special bar down below and it is only when the plane arrives at Prestwick that an imaginary line is drawn and a silken cord is placed across the entry to show that one cannot go into the bar. Therefore, there are plenty of facilities for anyone who wants to have a drink when travelling between London and New York or Montreal. The planes do not stop very long at Prestwick anyhow, and I do not believe that there is any real hardship to an international traveller between London and New York.
I want to say a few words on behalf of the people who have to handle the human consequences of too much drink in a passenger. These are the stewardesses. They are very good public servants indeed. They show patience and courtesy under all kinds of very difficult circumstances. I do not want to have them given a further problem of dealing with somebody who has had too much to drink in London Airport and too much to drink in the aeroplane coming up to Prestwick, and who then is invited to go and have too much to drink at Prestwick. These girls have to travel through the night. These planes leave Prestwick sometimes about midnight and the girls may have to handle very awkward customers who have had too much to drink. I do not understand, therefore, why the Bill has been forced upon the House. I have never heard such a flimsy case as this for any Government legislation.
It is the duty of the House to throw the Bill out. 1 am allergic to alcohol but I do not want to interfere with people who normally take it. I hope that I am not intolerant, but I am allergic to alcohol even when it takes the form of vodka. Alcohol is not only the enemy of the proletariat but the source of a big human social problem in every part of the world, and we should not give its consumption the slightest encouragement in any way.
I should like to know something about the origin of the Bill. Did it originate in the desire of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) for good international relationships and human tolerance, or did it arise because somewhere at the back of all this there is the insidious power of corrupt vested interest always ready to push the sale of alcohol and attribute to it wonderful potentialities


just because it gives profit to people who make profits out of the misery and degradation of others?

Mr. Ian Harvey: In view of what the hon. Member says, it is only right to say that the Bill in principle originated under his own Government when discussions took place between his own Front Bench and the British Travel Association.

Mr. Hughes: That is a peculiar argument to address to me.

Mr. de Freitas: It should be made quite clear that neither of the two Labour Governments introduced a Bill like this to the House of Commons.

Mr. Ian Harvey: They did not have time to introduce it, because they fell before the occasion arose.

Mr. Ede (South Shields): I was the Minister in charge of licensing in this country and I never heard of it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing to withdraw. There are frequently disputed accounts of facts like these. We had better get on.

Mr. Hughes: The origin of the Bill is still clouded in obscurity. Even if, by some lapse, the Labour Government happened to do this, which has been denied, that would by no means commend it to me, because if a Labour Government do anything fundamentally wrong I hope that I shall be here to oppose it just as I would oppose a wrong action by any other Government.
I should like to go into the origins of the Bill. I cannot think that it has somehow come as an inspiration from the hon. Member for Harrow, East. There are pressures behind the scenes. They have been too persistent to make one think that they are not present. They were behind this effort all the time. They tried to plant this proposal in the House of Commons by the method of a Private Member's Bill. When they were defeated as a result of the activities of the former hon. Member for Ealing, North they made it appear in a different form.
Let us not think that because the former hon. Member for Ealing, North has gone from the House there are not

those who are just as sensitive to and suspicious of vested interest in liquor as he is. Although he may not be now a Member of the House there are those on this side of the House who have always taken an anti-drink attitude. I hope, therefore, that the House, given a free vote, will say "Nothing doing" to the liquor interest and so keep this social evil from extending and making greater the difficulties of those who do the work on aeroplanes travelling from country to country and from town to town.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has asked about the origin of the Bill and has suggested that there is a murky financial interest behind it. I have had nothing to do with promoting the Bill and I came into the Chamber only to listen to the discussion. I rise to give the reaction of an hon. Member on this side of the House who is in favour of the Bill, because, so far, we have had about a dozen speeches only one or two of which have supported it.
It seems to me that those many hon. Members on both sides who have spoken against the Bill are opposed to the consumption of alcoholic liquor in any form, at any time and at any place and, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire almost admitted just now, would like to see drink done away with altogether. That is a reasonable point of view, although I do not happen to share it, but it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to say that the proposal in this Bill is outrageous when they really mean that drink itself is always outrageous.
The proposals in this Measure are very small and, as my hon. Friend explained when he introduced it, the Bill covers only a limited number of people. How can it be said that the small extra amount of drink which would be consumed in a few international airports could possibly be of financial advantage to the supposed sponsors of this Bill? I can tell the hon. Gentleman what lies behind the Bill. It is the accumulation of thousands of small, petty irritations to visitors to this country who expect a warm welcome when they arrive, but find themselves faced with a pettifogging law based upon a puritanical conscience of thirty or forty years ago,


and they ask why. The object I have in supporting this Bill is to remove that unnecessary irritation without corrupting the morals of anybody.
The two main arguments which have been advanced against the Bill are as follow. The first is that it makes air travel more dangerous. The second is that it opens the door to abolition of our present licensing hours everywhere. As to the first argument, several hon. Members have said that to consume liquor makes one's reactions slower. That argument is heard constantly from temperance people in connection with the consumption of liquor by the drivers of cars. I ask those hon. Members who apply the same argument to aircraft, are they talking about the passengers or the pilot?
In the first speech we heard from the Opposition benches the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) constantly confused the two. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he was speaking as if the passengers were responsible for the control of the machine and, of course, they are not. The hon. Gentleman also overlooked the fact that a passenger can consume liquor as soon as he enters the aircraft, and on a long flight across the Atlantic, whether he has had a drink at the airport before leaving or whether he starts to drink only when he enters the aircraft, can have only a tiny effect upon the state of his inebriation. So it is an absurd argument.
The second argument is that it will open the door to the widening of our licensing laws. I cannot see that it will be so. These passengers are in a special category. Flying is the most luxurious form of travel known to us and airports are special places. They share among themselves a special atmosphere. Indeed, the traveller scarcely knows when he arrives at an international airport which country he is in, and he only knows he is in England because he cannot get a drink.
Therefore, it is right that, because airports have this special atmosphere and conditions, a special law should apply to them. Passengers are apt to remain at an airport for hours if the aircraft has been delayed by weather or mechanical trouble. That applies to no other form of travel. Normally, one does not wait in a railway station or in a bus station for hours— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, one can go outside; but airports, in most cases,

are miles from the centre of towns and there is nothing to do but sit in the airport and wait until the aircraft arrives or takes off. During those hours of waiting it is a natural human reaction to wish for refreshment. Some of us can do with coffee, but others like something a little stronger. Who are we to say that of practically every country in the world it shall be only in England that this small luxury is denied? That is why I am in favour of this Bill.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) were here, I would assure him that I shall not go from this Chamber to the Strangers' Bar or to the bar on the Terrace or to the Smoking Room. His implication that some of us would oppose this Bill and then "have one" on the quiet was unworthy of one who took a leading part in promoting the Bill.
There is no mandate for this Measure. There was nothing in the Election manifesto of the Conservative Party for the past three or four Elections about licensing legislation and one wonders, therefore, why the Bill has been foisted upon the House first as a Private Member's Bill and then as a Government Measure, with so much assiduity by the supporters of the liquor trade. The Bill will absorb Parliamentary time which should be allotted to those of us who ask, every Thursday, for Parliamentary time for the discussion of matters of vital importance, such as great social problems and the cost of living. There is no time for these, but there is time for this miserable little Bill.
The drink trade is notoriously the spoiled darling of the Tory Party. It receives favours, and I have no doubt that it pays for the favours it receives in some form or another. In the old days, licensing used to be a live political issue. In my young days, in the Elections of 1906 and 1910, there were great fights about the licensing laws in the country and in the House of Commons. There was a Nonconformist conscience that could be aroused and there was a real temperance movement. Today, however, even the Churches are lukewarm about temperance and licensing matters. Here I want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) on making a very brave speech


but, in spite of what he said, I believe that the churches are lukewarm about temperance.
This Bill confers on foreign travellers the right to "booze" outside permitted hours and, presumably, also confers it on friends who meet them at the airport——

Mr. Watkinson: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it has been made quite plain, both by myself and many other hon. Members, that the object of the Bill is to see that this does not happen.

Mr. Simmons: There are ways of getting round that, and we can trust the people who want a "booze up" to get their pals around when they are doing so.
Air travel is the most expensive form of transport and, of course, that makes this Bill savour of class legislation. Therefore, it will undermine the general respect for the law. We have been told that these airport drinking places will be subject neither to our general licensing laws nor to police supervision. No barman will shout, "Time, gentlemen, please." No village constable will book someone for "having a quiet one" after drinking hours.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East assured us that this is a small, narrow Bill which does not go far, and asked, why make so much fuss? We were assured by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. Nicolson) that this small Bill does not involve great numbers of people. I reply to that that the thin end of the wedge seems, like King Charles's head, to be always cropping up in this debate, and at the risk of being charged with repetition I say that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge for undermining our licensing laws and bringing the orderly conduct of our licensed premises into disrepute. This Bill is the beginning of the reign of licence in the name of liberty.

Mr. Percy Daines: Does not my hon. Friend think that the fact that we can get a drink in this House at all times of the day is a fatter end of the wedge?

Mr. Simmons: Yes, and if it were not lese-majestè because this is a Royal

Palace, I would say that I thought so. As a matter of fact, it is wrong and I do say so.
A movement may well arise which will demand for Englishmen the same rights in respect of drinking as will be enjoyed by foreigners. Let us not forget that Mosley is on the rampage again; he likes to indulge in stirring up racial hatred. This might well be a General Election issue. We may see on the posters "Vote for Blank and stop the foreigner mopping up our beer," or, "Vote for Dash and make the Yanks get their Scotch from the off-licence." Anti-foreign feeling is easily aroused, and it can be dangerous. Discrimination in favour of the foreigner against the Englishman is something which could be used by unscrupulous elements with disastrous results.
We were assured by the hon. Member for Harrow, East that the Bill is designed simply to help the tourist trade and to improve our economy. Is it not a rather far-fetched argument that the Bill will help the tourist trade? Do foreigners come here just for a "booze-up"? Surely most foreigners come here to do business or to study our way of life, and so on. Are we to give foreigners the impression that part of our way of life is to give privileges for obtaining alcoholic refreshment to those who can afford air travel, to the exclusion of others?
Are we to give them the impression that to us a cocktail shaker is more important than the Memorial Theatre at Stratford-on-Avon, or that a bottle of "bubbly" is more part of our national tradition than St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey? What will be their impression of the Mother of Parliaments if they learn that an established code of law has been deliberately broken, with malice aforethought, by this House to entice visitors here and net dollars? What will they think of our morality and ethics? Even the hardest-drinking Yank, yearning for a drink when he arrives, would despise us for that kind of action. This country has far worthier attractions for serious foreign visitors than unlimited drinking facilities, and it is better that the visitors should see us through eyes not distorted by drink.
Our licensing laws grew out of requirements for public order and safety, and modern progress may well call for a strengthening of them rather than a


weakening of them. The Royal Commission on Licensing, of 1929–31, said, in paragraph 105:
… we regard it as an essential safeguard that—whatever else may or may not be done— the present restrictions should be maintained.
Let hon. Members think of the enormous increase in the number of cars on our roads since that Royal Commission's Report was published. Safety on the roads is an immensely more important consideration now than it was in those days. One of the greatest contributory factors to death on the roads is the drink trade, the drunk driver, and the driver who is under the influence of drink. These are the dangerous people, and the law ought to be strengthened against them.
Hon. Members opposite have tried to confuse the issue by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking was casting a slur upon the crews of aircraft. That is an entirely unfounded charge. My hon. Friend was referring, on the basis of his medical knowledge, to the influence of alcohol on human minds, brains, and action, and was dealing with the effect of alcohol upon travellers in aircraft. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, "Who runs the aircraft? The travellers do not do so. The pilot and the crew run it. Why bother about the condition of the travellers?"
However, we have had evidence from a well-known American pilot, Captain Francis J. Black, who flies a Constellation, about fatal accidents caused by drunken travellers in United States aircraft. We have had quoted to us a resolution by the pilots and pursers of American airlines, who seek the complete prohibition of drinking on American aircraft. Are we to encourage these elements working towards safety and decency in the air, or are they to find when they come to this country that the Government have gone in the reverse direction and made drinking for air travellers easier instead of harder?
The Bill is unwanted except by a small minority. It is designed to deal with licensing piecemeal and, therefore, out of perspective with the wider problem. It sets a precedent for other changes in the direction of weakening the law. Drinking facilities for night travellers by coach and rail have been mentioned. Why not

also for night workers? It is the thin end of the wedge.
We know that the drink traffic is a powerful one. We know it controls advertising in the Press. We know that it contributes to the funds of the Conservative Party. However, we also know that the drink trade, powerful though it is, cannot prevail against the will of Parliament. I appeal to hon. Members who do not believe in the domination of the country by the drink trade, and who resent the efforts of the drink trade to control Parliament by devious means, to vote against the Second Reading on the ground that the Bill is unwanted and unnecessary.

7.47 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: I am sure that when ordinary members of the public read about the debate in the newspapers tomorrow they will feel that most of the arguments adduced against the Bill have been very greatly exaggerated. 1 would not for a moment question the sincerity of hon. Members on either side of the House who have spoken against the Bill, for that would be wholly wrong, but I am sure that the arguments which we have heard have been grossly exaggerated.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) is always eloquent. However, on this occasion I found it a little difficult to follow his arguments about Sir Oswald Mosley, class legislation, profits for the Tory Party and so on. It all seemed to be very wide of the mark. I could not help feeling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you were even more indulgent than you have sometimes been in the past in your kindness——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. I did not even hear the speech of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Although you were not here to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), surely what the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) has just said is a reflection upon Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. It is out of order to make such remarks.

Major Beamish: I readily offer a complete apology, to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker. I certainly did not intend to cast any reflection upon the Chair.

Mr. Simmons: The hon. and gallant Member referred to one of my points but had it out of context and out of perspective. I was referring to the danger of legislation discriminating against Britishers in favour of foreigners being employed by certain elements, with very dangerous results.

Major Beamish: That is a point of view that I can understand but with which I do not agree. This is a most excellent little Bill, and I am glad that the Government have introduced it. I have found the debate very interesting.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) will not mind my saying that I regarded as a considerable overstatement his remark that every section of the Christian Church is opposed to the Bill. I do not believe that that is the case. I honestly do not think that there is any evidence for that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon was slightly shaken by the unholy alliance that developed between him and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). There cannot have been many occasions when they have found themselves in such complete agreement.

Mr. F. Beswick: I have tried to follow this discussion for a long time. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) says that Christian Churches were not against the Bill. Will he be good enough to say what section of the British population is in favour of it?

Major Beamish: I have no hesitation in saying that the average person in this country is in favour of the Bill.
This is one of those strange occasions on which public opinion is not properly reflected in this Chamber. It does sometimes happen. I believe that the debate which we have had so far this evening has not been a true reflection of the opinion of the average person. Wholly undue weight has been laid upon the opposition to the Bill. It often happens that people who are in favour of something do not bother to come along and

say so, while the people who are against it get up and say so. We know that from our constituency correspondence.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire never loses an opportunity of making an attack on American airmen in this country. It is always a safe bet that whenever he speaks he will find some way of keeping within order and making that attack. It was very unfortunate that he should have made that reference to the presence of American troops here, and should have criticised them for the quite rare occasions on which they have been discovered to be the worse for drink. I have had some experience of foreign soldiering and I have observed the behaviour of troops stationed in a foreign country. The American troops in this country have behaved incredibly well and their behaviour measures up very well indeed to the behaviour of the best British troops when abroad.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am not trying to cast an aspersion on all American troops. The majority of the American airmen in Prestwick are as much against the man who gets drunk and drives into a bus as are we. I do say that the American airmen in Prestwick who take drink constitute a very great social problem for the community at present.

Major Beamish: I am glad that the hon. Member has made it clear that he is not making a general charge, but is referring to a small number of specific instances. I do not want to lecture the hon. Member, but he ought to avoid giving a general impression about bad behaviour when in fact that is not the impression which he wishes to create.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. and gallant Member should read the Ayrshire Post.

Major Beamish: The point which hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill have obviously overlooked is that of the great discomfort of air travel. One is apt to land in some airport in some ghastly weather at any hour of the day or night and very likely to want refreshment and to have a drink. I cannot see that there is anything worse in serving a passenger at an international airport in this country with a whisky and soda to have with his ham sandwich during the night than in serving him with a whisky and soda to have with a ham sandwich at 9 p.m., which happens to be within the


licensing hours. I cannot see that there is any difference, and the principle which the Bill embodies seems to me to be entirely proper.
I would interpolate, in a slightly more humorous vein, that I should have thought that when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was expressing such anxiety about the possibility of some of his Scottish friends taking their drink in some international airport in this country, he would have known that the big difference between drinking on the ground and in an aeroplane, is that in an aeroplane, as a rule, one does not have to pay for one's drinks, so that the hon. Member will be the first to agree that if a Scotsman is involved, he is more likely to drink in the aeroplane than on the ground.
I simply do not understand the point that allowing passengers to have drinks outside normal licensing hours would increase the danger of flying. It has never been suggested that the pilot and crew are involved. We all know how reliable are the crews of aeroplanes. We all know perfectly well that if a pilot wants to get drunk on the ground, he can carry a flask and will not be helped to get drunk by the fact that the airport bar is open. It cannot be seriously suggested that the danger of flying will be increased if passengers are allowed to have a drink in the way that the Bill envisages.
I have the utmost respect for teetotallers. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said that he was allergic to alcohol. He is welcome to be allergic to alcohol and so is any hon. Member who wishes to be, but that is no reason why the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and other hon. Members should force their views on other people when all that this Bill will do is to bring this country into line in this respect with other countries. I am sorry to say that I missed my right hon. Friend's speech, and I am not sure whether he told the House which countries have such legislation as this and which do not. However, I am practically certain that every foreign country of which I know allows passengers at international airports to have a drink all round the clock.

Mr. Watkinson: Mr. Watkinsonindicated assent.

Major Beamish: I am glad to have my right hon. Friend's confirmation.
I conclude by saying that this is a most excellent little Bill, and I do not regard it as being the miserable Bill which several hon. Members have said it is. I shall have the greatest pleasure in voting for it tonight. It is long overdue.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in opposition to the Bill. I have been extremely pleased to hear some courageous speeches from the other side of the House. I want to pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) who made an excellent speech, with which most of us on this side of the House agreed and to which we should pay much attention, because of the hon. Member's knowledge of the industry involved in the provisions of the Bill.
I want to take part in the debate, because I consider that the arguments which I have heard from the other side tonight, after ten years as a Member of this House, have been the most illogical to which I have ever listened. In the last half hour we have had complete contradictions from two Members opposite who have supported the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) have contradicted one another, perhaps not within each other's hearing. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch reminded us that flying was the most luxurious form of travel and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes told us of its discomforts and of arriving at airports and being unable to get a drink.
There is a parallel. I can imagine nothing worse than being pitched out of a train at Crewe Station in the middle of the night and being unable to get a drink of any sort. That is about the worst thing which could happen to anyone travelling by train in this country, and it has no analogy in flying. I am concerned that here is an effort to establish a privilege for people flying to this country which we are not prepared to accord to the people of this country when they are travelling.
It has never been my privilege to fly the Atlantic, but I am informed by friends who have done so that it can be flown in ten hours, or even less. I am advised that, during the whole of that journey, if


they so desire, passengers may take all the liquor they may want long before they arrive in this country; and yet one of our own citizens who might want to travel this very night from King's Cross or St. Pancras to Edinburgh or Glasgow would be unable to get refreshment of any kind during the hours of the journey. That seems to be completely illogical.
Then, we had to listen to the words of wisdom which fell from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) who, some hon. Members seem to think, is perhaps the inspiration behind this Bill. I would not know, but I do know that the hon. Member suggested to the House that if we continue to restrict the consumption of drink at all our international airports in this country, the result is bound to be that we shall have fewer foreign visitors to this country. I cannot imagine a more feeble, weak or flimsy kind of argument than that which was advanced by the hon. Member for Harrow, East. I cannot believe, and surely no hon. Member of this House can possibly believe, that any person who is coming herefrom the United States, almost certainly on business, is likely to cancel that business trip simply because when he arrives here he cannot get a drink at London Airport. What sheer nonsense that is as an argument in favour of the Bill.
I felt rather sorry for the Minister who had to present the Bill to the House. I must admit, quite frankly, that I was rather surprised that he introduced the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has won a considerable amount of esteem among hon. Members on this side of the House in the two offices which he has held, and I found it difficult to believe—although I have since noticed that the right hon. Gentleman has been in agreement with the remarks of some of his hon. Friends— that he could be responsible for a Bill of this kind.
If we carry the argument of the hon. Member for Harrow, East to what I believe to be its logical conclusion, then what in effect it means is that we are prepared to abandon the licensing laws in order to obtain a few more dollars. That is what it means if we give the hon. Gentleman's argument its full weight, though I certainly do not accept it in any shape or form. I do not think it is unfair, if we accept the hon. Gentle-

man's argument, to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is in effect selling our souls for a mess of pottage. I think that is the parallel, and a perfectly fair parallel, and therefore I hope that the House will reject the argument.

Mr. Daines: Would it not be in conformity with the moral principles of my hon. Friend if he were to take some steps to see that this House conformed to the licensing law?

Mr. Wilkins: My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) has interjected this remark on two or three occasions. I know that he is always trying to be helpful. I should be only too delighted to take any action to apply the licensing laws to this place, and I say quite clearly and categorically and without hesitation that the majority of hon. Members would be prepared to do so if they had the opportunity.
Before I conclude, I should like to ask the Minister one question. It appears from the wording of Clause I that any action the Minister may take subsequent to the passing of this Bill—if it is passed —will be done by means of an Order. I should like to know whether the procedure will be that of the affirmative or negative Resolution. I would ask him whether he contemplates putting into operation at our international airports the suggestion that came from one hon. Member opposite—at least, it was a suggestion by inference—that in the other international airports of the world people are able to drink all the way round the clock.
Does the Minister contemplate the provision of facilities of that kind, or are there to be some restricted facilities? If so, the House has a right to know before it approves the Second Reading of the Bill what proposals the Minister has in mind for the extension of the licensing hours at airports which will come within the province of this Bill.
My final words are addressed to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Time and time again, during the ten years I have sat in this House, there have been occasions on which they have either ridiculed or criticised the actions of the party to which I belong. There is one thing about the party on this side of the House, and that is that it has always conceded freedom of conscience on issues of this kind. Here


and now, I challenge the Government to offer the same freedom to hon. Members opposite, but, of course, one reason why they will not do so is that they know that if they conceded to their own Members the same privilege that we have here of voting in accordance with our consciences on issues of this kind, which surely are moral issues, this Bill would not proceed any further beyond the stage which it has now reached.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I had not intended heralding my recent humble return to this House by taking part in this debate, but I have travelled a great deal by air throughout the world, and still do, and I have seen the kind of thing which is actually happening in this sphere. In view of the fact that some of our arguments have been called illogical, I should like to say that I have never heard more extravagant arguments used about a small Bill by its opponents. We have heard about racial hatred and the brewers' interests, although the only hon. Gentleman on this side of the House who is connected with the brewers has spoken against the Bill. We have heard about class warfare, and in listening to some of the speeches one might really have thought that a major change in the licensing laws was involved.
Before I come to the main burden of my remarks on this Bill, I wish to refer to the fact that the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) because he resented the fact that any aspersions had been cast on members of aircrews taking alcohol. It was a very fair point, but I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that he had not studied the debate very carefully when he said that he did not find any evidence. I was under the impression on that occasion in the House that the suggestion was made, and, in fact, I have a record of it here.
For the sake of the record, and since my hon. Friend was challenged, I should like to read it to the House. In the course of his remarks, the then hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), on 7th May, 1954, said this:
The question of the supply of liquor in new forms engaged the attention of the Royal Commission on Licensing which reported on the question of air travel and drink as well as

upon many other aspects of the same issue. It was pointed out in that report that there was no case for an increase of facilities for those actually engaged in the piloting and general conduct of planes. In my judgment, it is more than likely that if there were a provision like the one suggested in this Bill, for drink to be taken at any time of the day or night as planes arrive, it would be difficult to guarantee that it would be kept quite apart from any arrangement for the refreshment of pilots and others engaged in the conduct of the planes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 808.]
I think the hon. Member for Openshaw would concede, for the sake of the record, that the suggestion was made.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I will accept that, in that respect, my memory was not as good as I thought it was, but reference was made to putting temptation in people's way, so that it might be possible in a moment of weakness for people who otherwise would not do so to do something which they really did not want to do.

Mr. Bennett: I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman. It was simply that a challenge had been made and I thought it fair that the position should be clarified.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the hon. Gentleman opposite aware that it is the rule so far as both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are concerned that no pilot may drink while he is in uniform whether on or off duty?

Mr. Williams: And is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of us who have been sitting in the Chamber throughout the debate know that very well?

Mr. Bennett: I have accepted that; the point has already been made clear.
If one goes by air abroad, let us say to the United States or to Canada, it is worth thinking about how the provisions of this Bill would operate. Some suggestions have been made, and it is imagined by some hon. Members, that this would lead to a large number of passengers getting into a rollicking frame of mind in a bar in London Airport before getting into an aeroplane. Or that When they arrived from America, or some other place, that passengers would get into a rollicking frame of mind before they left the airport. That is not how international air travel works.
Only ten days ago I went to London Airport to travel abroad. Not only is a


passenger not called beyond the Customs barrier, which is the area where the provisions of this Bill would operate, until very shortly before the aircraft is expected to leave—that is, assuming that there is not a contingency at the last moment such as a change in the weather—but, normally, he would take his passport and go through the Customs and within a matter of minutes from that moment he would be called to board the aircraft. There is no chance, even if he wishes, for anyone to have more than a single drink at most because, normally, there is no time.
The same thing applies to passengers entering the country. If a person arrives at London Airport after a long flight over the Atlantic, the last thing he wishes to do is to hang around a bar within the Customs barrier in order to have a drink. I can assure hon. Members who have not flown the Atlantic that on landing in this country after ten or twelve hours of flight —and having been perhaps turned out at Gander, Goose Bay, Reykjavik, or Shannon—the last thing that one desires to do is to settle down to have a glass of sherry. One wishes to get to a hotel or one's home as quickly as possible and have a bath and go to bed. I have been sitting through this debate and listening to the speeches and I am trying to put this thing into its proper perspective.
Perhaps, at the last moment, just before a passenger goes into the aeroplane, something happens, the weather changes, or engine trouble develops, and he is suddenly told that perhaps he may have to sit in the lounge for two, three, or four hours. It is impossible for him to get back again into England, because he has passed the international barrier. On such an occasion, while he is waiting, a passenger should be able to have a drink with his sandwich. On the way back here I fully concede that I do not think that the number of drinks taken by people coming into the country before going through the Customs will amount to anything that would give any brewer a farthing increase on his dividends in a hundred years.

Mr. D. Jones: Then why have the Bill?

Mr. Bennett: I am going through the occasions when drinks might be taken beyond the Customs barrier.
The most significant time when the provisions in this Bill might be taken advantage of—and, again, this is my experience—is when one is in transport from, let us say, America to Paris, or Frankfurt, or Rome, via London Airport —either because one wishes to go that way or because whatever route is chosen happens to go via London. Very infrequently indeed, particularly if one has the experience of crossing the Atlantic, does one run a plane schedule so close that one spends only a few minutes at London Airport. More often than not one arranges a wait of one, two, three, or four hours at London Airport to give oneself a period of grace before taking off on the next stage of the flight.
London Airport is some way from the West End of London, and it is hardly worth while going through the formalities at the Customs and hiring a car to go to London. The traveller would prefer to stay at the airport. It is on such occasions that I believe the provisions of this Bill would have its main, useful effect. It would not be a question of passengers getting into a rollicking frame of mind or indulging in a lot of drink and becoming obstreperous. A passenger might just want a half bottle of wine or a glass of beer with his meal.
If we regard this Bill in the way intended, I do not pretend it will result in a dramatic increase in the number of passengers using London Airport. Nor does it mean that a great many more people will fly via London. I would also agree that if we do not pass this Bill it would not mean a sudden and dramatic decline in the number of people travelling via London. But it is worth recalling that when one is discussing the amenities at a great international airport this is one small but valuable contribution which could be made to those amenities.
If we regard the airport not just as London Airport but what is to be the finest international airport, in which a great deal of travelling currency will be earned because it is used as a transit stop, it seems ridiculous that this extremely limited number of passengers should not obtain the same amenities there as they may obtain almost anywhere else in the world.
It may be argued that a small thing like getting a drink does not make that


much difference. But on dozens of occasions I have listened to conversations—I have crossed the Atlantic on dozens of occasions—and hon. Members would be surprised, when it is a question of whether a passenger should travel via Paris, or London, or Iceland, or Shannon, how much a certain amenity means if all other things are identical. I should not like to say how many passengers I have heard taking part in such conversations.
I would say to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that not all Atlantic travellers are Americans or members of the American Forces, yet many, for instance, like to go via Shannon, not because they can get a drink there, but because they can take a couple of bottles tax free away with them. I am deliberately telling this to the House although there is no suggestion that this should happen under the provisions of this Bill. But when there has been a choice of whether they should go via Iceland or Shannon, some say they will go via Shannon in order to pick up a bottle of Scotch whisky without paying any tax. If hon. Members do not believe that, they should travel and hear some of the remarks at London Airport by people who are making up their mind by which route they should travel.
I have tried to put the debate on this Bill into its proper perspective. I think it is a good Measure. It cannot do any harm. Some of the speeches which have been made this evening bear no relation to the facts. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said that it would lead to waiters at Prestwick having to rush round deciding who was a genuine international passenger. I do not know to where the hon. Member has flown at all, but it is impossible to go through the Customs in this country and then wander out freely and have lunch and dinner with members of the American Forces in an hotel.
The suggestion has been made that if these facilities are permitted, it will not be long before passengers and their friends all start taking drinks together. But that cannot be done. A passenger has to go through the Customs. About five people want to know about him; one how much money he has. By another his passport is examined, and there are questions, too, about health to be answered. There are police and other officials present and the suggestion that there is a magical way in which a man

could wriggle through all this in order to join his friends in a whisky and soda beyond the barriers shows that the people making them have never been through an international airport, or they would not talk such utter nonsense.
I shall support the Bill. There may well be something in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) on the question of method, but nothing on any principle and adding to the total of drunkenness in this country. It has even been ludicrously suggested that it would affect the driving of cars, and the question of being drunk in charge of a car has somehow been brought into this debate as one evil which would flow from the passing of this Bill.
The Bill will apply to only one type of person. It will not operate upon a class basis, as was suggested. It will apply to all those, British and foreign, who are travelling abroad upon international airlines; those who have passed beyond the Customs and have, therefore, for all practical purposes, left the country, but who wish to enjoy the same amenities which they can get at almost any other airport in the world. For that reason, I suggest that we should stop making such a fuss about the Bill. We should accept what it is intended to do and give the Government the support they deserve upon it.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has suggested that less fuss should be made about the Bill—and I agree with him. But I think that it is on the part of those who are bringing forward the Bill that less fuss should be made. The onus is upon them to prove their case, and they have not yet done so. The hon. Member says that he is in favour of the Bill upon the basis of his experiences whilst travelling in and out of airports. I, too, have travelled in and out of airports. I have probably travelled round and about as much as anybody in this House, but I do not believe that there is a case for changing the law in relation to this matter, upon the basis of the arguments which I have heard so far. I have heard them not only this evening, but over the quite appreciable period of time during which I have followed the matter.
The hon. Member mentioned, as being typical, the occasion when one has rushed through the Customs and wants to reach


one's hotel or get back home. I quite agree that that is normally the case with the majority of people entering the country. It is also true that the majority of those leaving want to go through the different formalities and get on to the plane and away as soon as possible—but is the hon. Member suggesting that a case has been made out for a Bill to go through all its stages in both Houses upon the basis that at some time out of licensing hours an aircraft may experience engine trouble which involves a period of waiting for its passengers, and that those passengers should therefore be permitted to drink?

Mr. F. M. Bennett: The hon. Member should also remember the question of passengers having to wait while in transit. That happens every day, and has nothing to do with engine trouble.

Mr. Beswick: I intended to deal with the position of the transit passenger. I have seen people booking tickets in many parts of the world, but I have never known a single person to base his choice of route upon the relative facilities for obtaining alcoholic drinks on the way.
I remember that during the war we use to boast of the things that we could get in various parts of the world. In Karachi one could get suede shoes; one went through Brazil in order to pick up a very good watch, and one certainly went via Gibraltar because Saccone and Speed's sold very good sherry, which could not be obtained at home. But in peacetime I have never come across a single intending passenger who has solemnly studied the particulars of different airlines and said, "I will travel by that one because at a certain transit station I can have a drink at a certain time of day or night." I do not believe that anyone bases his choice upon that kind of consideration, and I cannot therefore see why we should go to all the trouble of bringing forward this Bill.

Mr. D. Jones: How does an intending traveller know how long he will have to wait at London Airport if his aircraft is going to be late?

Mr. Beswick: I agree that that is also a factor to bear in mind.
The Clerk to the Justices of the Uxbridge Petty Sessions addressed a letter

to the Minister's predecessor, and 1 believe that reference has already been made to it. The letter put forward what seems to me to be a very reasonable case, namely, that the definition of a licensed area which was to be allowed to sell alcohol at any time in the 24 hours was being left to the Customs authorities under the Bill. The justices held that to be wrong. There is substance in that case. I understand that the Minister's predecessor and the Department officially put forward a contrary argument.

Mr. Watkinson: I quite appreciate the fact that the hon. Member was not here when I spoke, but I made it quite clear that nothing in the Bill takes away from licensing authorities their right to decide whether or not London Airport has a licence.

Mr. Beswick: I did take the trouble to find out what the Minister said about that, and I was going to deal with it. The difficulty in that respect, however, is the difficulty which hon. Members experience in dealing with a regulation. They cannot give a qualified acceptance; they must pray against it entirely or support it entirely, just as in this case the justices cannot decide whether the area should be greater or less, or that this or that bar is the more suitable for providing these facilities. They must take it or leave it. I believe that to be wrong.
I also want to deal with a few of the other arguments put forward by the Minister's predecessor, and his Dapartment, in what I thought was a rather cavalier reply to the Clerk to the Uxbridge Petty Sessions. The reply stated that the justices were mistaken in their view of the effect of the Bill, and told them that it was, after all, only
to enable all air travellers, and nobody else, to get drinks whenever they wish.
It is only right that we should examine this point in a little more detail. Reference has been made to the privilege which the Bill will grant to air passengers. Why should this privilege be given only to air passengers? Why should they be treated separately? A better case could be made out for providing all-night facilities at Victoria Coach Station. I cannot accept the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) that air travel is the acme of discomfort. I hope that the Parliamentary


Secretary will also controvert that argument. The Monarch Service across the Atlantic could never be described as the acme of discomfort, but if I were to get off a coach which had arrived at Victoria from Edinburgh overnight, I feel that I should have a much better case for demanding alcohol, if alcohol is to be provided at all. I just cannot see why air travellers should be singled out for this privilege.
The argument has also been advanced that these facilities should be available for people coming here from abroad, but if a person is found objectionably drunk in Central London how can we say, "It does not matter, because he has only just come from abroad?" If there is reason to protect society from over-indulgence in alcohol, no special dispensation should be given simply because a person has just arrived from abroad. The other part of that argument related to the passenger who is leaving this country. I cannot see why an exception should be made in his case, either, because he has more facilities for drinking than anyone in this country.
More facilities for drinking are available on board an aircraft than anywhere else. I do not accept or except the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) in relation to the facilities granted in this place, because in an aircraft we have only to sit in our seat to have a drink brought to us.

Mr. Daines: Is my hon. Friend aware that if any citizen of London really wants to drink all night long all he has to do is to transfer himself from the West End to the market areas of the City? He can there drink all night in public houses.

Mr. Beswick: My hon. Friend is apparently an expert upon the anomalies of the licensing laws. I agree with him that there are anomalies, but there is not a case for extending them. I cannot see the purpose of his interventions on this point.

Mr. Daines: Mr. Dainesrose—

Mr. Beswick: I would like to make another point in relation to passengers going aboard aircraft. I speak with experience. My hon. Friend can take it from me that there is a difference on the physical constitution of an individual

between taking a certain quantity of alcohol in a London market and taking the same amount of alcohol in the air. The effect of an excess of alcohol, or more than a moderate amount, on a passenger travelling in a pressurised aircraft at 25,000 feet is more serious than it would be on the ground.

Mr. Remnant: That is correct, but the Bill does not deal with the service of alcohol in the air but the serving of drinks on the ground.

Mr. Beswick: I am referring to the effect of alcohol on the constitution of an aircraft passenger, and not to the act of serving drinks. It is possible, under the Bill, to make it easier for a person to take more alcohol before he boards an aircraft. I tell my hon. Friend, who has so clearly in mind the point about facilities in some of the wholesale markets in London, that we have to be more careful in this case than in the case to which he has so rightly called our attention.
Alcohol has a greatly increased effect on the constitution of the person taking it when he is flying in a more rarefied atmosphere. I do not mean a person who has drunk so much that he has been stopped from boarding an aircraft, but when another drink or two on the aircraft will make all the difference. That person can be a much bigger nuisance, to put it at the least, and a much greater danger, to put it rather higher, than a person in Smithfleld Market. For that reason we should take particular care before we give the extra powers proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Daines: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) is giving an interpretation of my two previous interventions. Let me explain. The speeches to which I have listened have opposed the Bill on moral principles. I have been trying to point out that if they are taken——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: These interventions seem to be more in the nature of a debate than of interventions.

Mr. Daines: On a point of order. When my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge gives way to me, surely it is in order for me to pursue the intervention.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The object of an intervention is to clear up an ambiguity, not to put forward a counter-argument.

Mr. Daines: That is precisely what I am trying to do. My hon. Friend has given an incorrect interpretation of my interventions and I am trying to correct it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's argument appeared to be in the nature of a debating point which would be more appropriate in a speech of his own.

Mr. Daines: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I do not accept that interpretation.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Beswick: I conclude my speech by reiterating that the onus of proof is upon the sponsors of the Bill. I do not think they have made out a case.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member did not hear what I said.

Mr. Beswick: No, but I happen to know the argument, which has been made before. I have also read the correspondence on the subject. The matter has been raised in this House, and I have read about it with great care.
A case has not been made out for changing the law. If it is to be changed, I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the detail points which were made by the magistrates responsible for licensing in the Uxbridge area, which includes London Airport, one of the two airports immediately affected by the Bill.
We ought not to suggest that we rely for the tourist trade on the possibility of obtaining drinks at any time of the day or night. We have much greater things to offer in this country and much bigger and more important problems with which to occupy the time of the House than this Bill. I regret that the Bill has been brought before us and I shall vote against it.

8.35 p.m.

Major Sir Frank Markham: One of the great joys of being in politics is that one is always being surprised by the unexpected. Tonight I have been more than surprised at the heat which this Bill has engendered. I

expected to find a very calm debate, with very few speakers, and perhaps with an early Division round about dinner time, so that we could all go off and treat ourselves to the respective drinks which we prefer. Instead of that, there have been accusations bandied from one side to the other, and some most extraordinary assertions, one of which was made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) to the effect that one can either get drunk quicker in the air or more slowly in the air, or that, at any rate, the air does something to one after having a drink. That is something which I had never heard before.

Mr. Beswick: Would the hon. and gallant Member like me to send him the medical evidence on which that assertion is made?

Sir F. Markham: No, I should prefer to conduct the medical experiment on myself. When I first looked at the Bill I thought that it was singularly harmless because, when all is said and done, it is simply to exempt international airports in this country from the restrictions on the times at which intoxicating liquor may be sold or supplied. The thought immediately occurred to me: why cannot a small change like this be made by the Minister under existing regulations?
I understand from what has been said that he has no powers to do anything of the kind, hence we have to go to the trouble of a full-dress Act of Parliament. I hope that in future some way will be found to make sensible compromises in our licensing laws without having to take up the full time of this House for the purpose. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will give us some statement about the position with regard to his ability or inability to make regulations to achieve small compromises of this kind.
The reason that I am interested in this matter is that, like some other hon. Members who have spoken, I am a very constant air traveller. In the last few years I have travelled over 100,000 miles as a fare-paying passenger, quite apart from military trips made during the war years. During those journeys, there have been innumerable times when the freedom displayed on the Continent and in the United States has been in great contrast with the narrowness of interpretation expressed in this country.
Only a fortnight ago I travelled from Innsbruck to Paris, and, in the course of the journey, had to stop for three and a half hours at Zurich. There I had the pleasure of meeting another Member of this House, the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who, like myself, was stranded for three and a half hours at a great international airport. Whether we wanted tea or coffee, or something stronger and as cheerful, the choice was absolutely free. I mean free in one sense but not in another: we could order what we wanted. I feel that this is something which should not be forbidden to international travellers coming to this country.
The same international courtesy should be extended to travellers coming here. Certainly these courtesies are extended on board ship and in every other respect which one can think of where international travel abroad is concerned. Therefore, I very strongly support the Bill. During my travels, I have never yet seen a single person the worse for liquor at any international airport. I have never seen a person totter either up or down the steps of a plane for that reason. I have known them to totter for other reasons connected with air sickness. I believe that those who travel by air are the most temperate of all the inhabitants of this world. I warmly support the Bill because I think that it is a moderate Measure, and I do not think, as suggested by hon. Members opposite, that this is the preliminary to an all-out attack on our licensing laws. I should be against that. I believe that this is a moderate Measure designed to improve international travelling facilities within this country and for that reason I support it.
The second reason, as has been made perfectly clear by previous speakers, is that when we consider travelling, the different routes are considered dispassionately and there is no question of class distinction of any kind. When any working man and his wife are considering where to go for their annual holidays, whether it be Margate or Blackpool, the question of travelling arises. Whether they go by bus, by train or by any other method depends not only on the speed of the route but also on the amenities to be found along it.
That also applies to international travel. Some years ago—and the Minister could support me with the facts—Air France obtained quite a lead over us

because of their advertising. Hon. Members may feel that this is an abominable way of advertising airlines, but in their advertising they stressed that a quarter bottle of champagne went with every meal on the Air France route. It was a bull point, a talking point and a selling point. It attracted some Americans who did not want champagne, who do not even like the look of it and who prefer rye or Scotch, but here was something which the French were offering as an inducement, and it attracted passengers.
Whether we come off the plane or are waiting for a plane at an international airport, we should have this freedom of choice. I do not believe for a moment that there will be any extra drunkenness anywhere as a result of the Bill. I believe that there will be greater kindliness and a warmer reception to visitors coming to our shores and that tolerance always shown by hon. Members when they come from the smoking room contrasted with the acidity which they show when they come from the tea room.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I want in a few words to register my objection to the Bill. I believe that it is a very dangerous Bill and I shall be surprised if it is passed.
One of the reasons that I object to the Bill and feel profoundly convinced that I must vote against it is that I have not been able to find any evidence outside the House that the Bill is essential. There is plenty of evidence against the Bill, as we have learned from our postbags. It has been said that the Churches are very lukewarm towards the Bill, but my post-bag indicates that they are strongly opposed to the Bill. There is plenty of evidence outside the House against the Bill, and it is quite certain that the Measure does not reflect a large measure of public opinion in the country.
I oppose the Bill because it will increase the danger factor and decrease the safety factor, and one thing which we do not find on our roads today is the safety which exists in air travel. I do not think that the Bill will safeguard the safety of air travel.
I want to call some evidence as to what the Bill will mean if it is put on the Statute Book. I know that the extension of the licensing hours would be subject to


the permission of the magistrates. I wish to call evidence because 1 think it indicates the feeling of people outside this House. When travelling in an aeroplane, discipline is absolutely essential. There must be discipline, not only on the part of the pilot and the crew, but on the part of the passengers who travel in the plane.
This is what was said in the Alliance News Summary on 27th June, 1955:
Who know better than the personnel from first-hand experience how drinking passengers can affect the safe-guarding of others in a plane? A thoroughly drink-crazed passenger might jeopardise the operation of the plane itself. Obnoxious as a person 'under the influence' may be in a land-bound public place, there is usually some escape from the situation. To be imprisoned miles above the earth, however, with someone who has dulled his sensibilities and stimulated his emotions with alcohol can imply an ordeal of quite a different order.
There is an expression of opinion from people who have given great consideration to this matter.
Another well-known pilot who regularly flies a Constellation plane with 88 passengers and a crew of six, said this:
There have been quite a few fatal accidents caused by fire in the cabin. No doubt some of these were caused by irresponsible drinking passengers …Once I saw a dozing drinker light several cigarettes and drop each one of them, still burning, down on to the upholstery. Another not drunk passenger had to be put into his seat and stopped from annoying others. A third drinker, who had attacked the plane's captain, had to be tied with a rope on the floor where he spent the rest of the flight.
There we have the increased danger factor and it is the increased danger factor which we want to prevent. I quote only those two pieces of evidence.
Every one of us knows that restrictions are irksome. The very word implies something preventing us from doing something that we desire to do. If I may draw from personal experience, it is well known in this House that I come from the mining industry. Licensing restrictions in mining hamlets are irksome to miners because they cannot get a drink just when they want one. Miners are prevented from taking alcoholic beverages underground because that would increase the danger factor. Time and time again representations have been made to me by miners working in the pits—down in the bowels of the earth, in a temperature of 90–110 degrees—to get an extension of

the licensing laws. I have had to reply that the laws are made and, whether one works in a pit, in a steel works or on the land, one has to obey those laws. If the licensing laws were extended we would increase the danger factor.
I know that the Minister may not agree with me. May I offer a word from personal experience? On the cessation of hostilities in 1945 I did a great deal of flying overseas. It was my first experience and, naturally, I was very curious. Therefore, I took into consultation the pilot and the crew of the aircraft in which I travelled. I asked the pilot, "Is there any beverage that one can drink to prevent air-sickness, which would help a person on his journey and make his journey more comfortable?" He said, "Yes. You can drink tea, you can drink coffee, but under no circumstances must you partake of alcoholic beverages."
That was the advice given to me by a pilot who had flown many thousands of miles. I was with him ten days, and every time I asked his opinion the same view was expressed. Therefore, having regard to what these experienced pilots and crews say, we shall, if we are sensible, take note of their advice, for their opinion comes from experience. I am one of those who believe in taking notice of men or women who have experience in the subject with which I am dealing.
I have never tasted beer in my life but I am not prejudiced against anybody who takes it.

Mr. Daines: How does my hon. Friend know what it is like?

Mr. Brown: I have never tasted beer in my life but I am not prejudiced against any person who desires a drink. There is a time and a place for everything, but an aircraft or an aerodrome is no place for any person to participate in the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, I shall feel that I am acting according to my convictions when I record my vote against the Bill.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: It was interesting to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), because he is one of the fairest men in the House. It is surprising how this extraordinary slant on drink can distort the mind of even the fairest of us. I have listened to a debate, which for


the most part has seemed to bear little or no relation to the facts as one knows them. The hon. Member for Ince talked about fires being started in Constellation aircraft by drink-sodden passengers. I know there were a number of fires in Constellations due to electrical trouble in the early days, but I certainly never heard of trouble caused by drink-sodden passengers.
Really, it is not true to say that by and large travellers in aircraft are interested in drinking. They are not very drink-conscious. They are trying to get somewhere or to get away from somewhere, and on the whole they are not out for a drunken orgy, drinking all they can possibly take. It certainly is not the intention of the Bill to provide for that purpose. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), take the view that those who want to promote a Bill of this kind must prove that there is need for it. They do not like to see any deviation from our licensing laws. I might regret the particular method by which the Bill is brought about, but that is a reflection of the idiocy of our licensing laws. This is the cumulative effect of hypocrisy over a long period.
I say to hon. Members opposite and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon that the era of hypocrisy is coming to an end. No longer will this nation be driven into ridiculous positions by a handful of the community. We are not panicking in the face of the Alliance of Great Britain or the Band of Hope Union—and I say that as a person who has signed the pledge in the Band of Hope and who, even today, would not worry if all the drink in the world evaporated tomorrow. I am not interested in drink myself, but I am interested in preserving the rights of people reasonably to partake of drink if they want to do so.
We are seeing the end of intimidation by a small section of the community. It will not be possible much longer for a few people to beat their drums at temperance meetings and talk about raffles and lotteries and imagine that the people who favour these things are contaminated by a sea of corruption. This era of domination by a few narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant people is nearly at an end.

Mr. Beswick: Would the hon. Member not agree that the greater moderation in these matters today is in large part due to the propaganda, education and social discipline introduced by the efforts of the individuals of whom he speaks?

Mr. Shepherd: I do not think so. Many social factors have intervened in the meantime to direct people's attention from what at one time was practically the only source of amusement and pleasure.
The method incorporated in the Bill for providing these drinking facilities may be undesirable in itself; but it is forced upon us because of the idiotic laws we have, due to hypocrisy in the past and in the near past. I would not support anything that would help to cause a drunken passenger to enter an aeroplane. If I thought for one moment that there was even the risk of these facilities being unwisely used by passengers I would most certainly vote against the Bill, but I can conceive of practically no circumstance in which an abuse is less likely than during air travel. As I have said, to drink is not the purpose of air travel, and though air travellers might like a little refreshment in transit they do not travel by air for the sake of drinking.
I admit that London Airport will not collapse if these facilities are not provided, but the facilities are what reasonable persons arriving in the country from various parts of the world might expect. Our duty is to provide what reasonable people imagine they ought to receive in the way of amenities and facilities, based upon their experience. That is my standpoint and one which I think brooks of no real contradiction.
People do not come to this country because they want to drink a lot and enjoy themselves in that way, but the British Holidays and Tourist Board has not pushed the Government on this matter year after year for no reason at all. It is true that whilst no one would come to Great Britain merely because of any added drink facilities, nevertheless many people look upon our restrictions as irksome. If they are travelling for pleasure they weigh up the advantages of Paris and London and, because of our absurd restrictions, they may decide to go to Paris.
Whilst I would not suggest that the attractions of this country to tourists are


based on the attraction of drink—I think that Stratford-on-Avon and St. Paul's have some pull in this matter—nevertheless the existence of these facilities is a matter which people bear in mind. The exaggerated effects of these restrictions tell against this country overseas. It is not so much the restrictions themselves as the way in which they are exaggerated by people in overseas countries that matters. During the war because people imagined that conditions here were worse than they were they sent us food parcels when very often were quite capable of feeding ourselves. It is not the actuality therefore, but what is made of these restrictions that matters.
I am glad to lend by support to the Bill. I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I am sorry that it has taken them so long. This is one more nail in the coffin of bigotry and intolerance, of which I want to see a great deal less in this country.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Time has passed and I must restrict what I have to say to two or three points. I should like, first, to refer to the experience of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) from the days of his Band of Hope membership to his speech today, but, obviously, that would be neither in order nor advisable at this stage.
Two things have surprised me today. In the first place, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation introduced this Bill. If there is to be any deviation from, or extension of, our licensing laws I should have thought that the most natural thing to do would be for the Home Secretary to come here and say that in a certain respect it would be wise for this House to reconsider its previous decisions. Yet I have seen the Home Secretary here for only a few moments.
It is true that his Joint Under-Secretary has been here for most of the debate but he has been silent up to now and, as far as I can gather, the hon. Gentleman is not likely to intervene. Practically every authority in this country, including the Royal Commission on Licensing, in 1929, has stated that in its view it would be unwise to remove existing restrictions in connection with our licensing laws.
Yet, on an occasion such as this, neither the Home Secretary nor his Joint Under-Secretary is prepared to intervene in the debate.
The hon. Member for Cheadle has been a very brave man tonight. He said that the time is coming when all rabid teetotallers and others concerned with the restrictive practices imposed on our licensing laws will have their corns cut. I ask him one simple question: Was the derestriction of certain licensing laws included in the Election manifesto of the Tory Party? I ask him, also, whether any reference was made, either by the Tory Central Office or by himself, to the desirability of changing our licensing laws at the last General Election? If anybody wanted to be as brave on this issue as the hon. Gentleman has been tonight, he had an ample opportunity at the last Election to ask the electors whether they thought any changes were necessary in our licensing laws.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in my constituency I made my own view plain, which is the limit of my responsibility.

Mr. Williams: I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that no mention of this was made by his party, and it certainly had no desire to accept a mandate from the electors during the General Election.
I say, therefore, that what hon. Gentlemen opposite have done on this occasion is to introduce a substantial change in the licensing laws through piecemeal legislation by back-door methods. That is the view of many hon. Members on this side of the House. If this had been presented on the main issue of a change in the licensing laws, the Government would not receive anything like the support they are likely to receive on this Bill.
Secondly, those of us who have followed the debates in this House on Fridays, and who remember the characteristic attacks made by Mr. James Hudson, who was formerly the hon. Member for Ealing, North, remember a queer thing about all those discussions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not able to carry through a similar Bill at that time. Why? For the simple reason that there were not enough Tory Members in the House to carry the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite


could easily have carried their point of view had they been in attendance on those occasions, but they were not here. Therefore, I am right in assuming that when the Government found they were unable to get a Bill through by the enthusiasm of hon. Gentlemen opposite as individuals, they have clamped down by Whip. They have imposed by Whip what they were unable to do by voluntary action on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I am not prepared to change our legislation merely to please foreigners. We ought to legislate for what is good for our own people. As I said in an intervention, when I have been to Scandinavian countries I have never challenged their right to do certain things on certain days or at certain times. It is a privilege to me to go to places and accept them as they are. What right has an American, a Frenchman or anyone else to be dissatisfied with our country because he cannot do exactly as he does at home?
If we carry this ridiculous argument to its logical conclusion, it means that if drinking goes on for twenty-four hours a day in France, we ought, in order to make Frenchmen feel at home, to allow it to go on for twenty-four hours of the day here. It means that if Americans do not find the counterpart in this country of the drinking rules and regulations in America, we are in danger of losing their custom. If people with such views come here, I am prepared to lose their custom, for it is not worth while varying our rules and regulations merely to prove that we can be sociable towards visitors. However, I do not believe that reasonable and rational visitors would expect us to do so.
I have met a large number of Americans, but not one of them has ever suggested that he would not come here again because he could not have the full drinking facilities which some hon. Members suggest he ought to have. Hon. Members have exaggerated the matter. There may be one or two people who express such an opinion, but I believe that the bulk of those who visit our country for business or pleasure are prepared to take our laws as they find them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked whether the Minister would have power to introduce these provisions at London Airport if the Uxbridge licensing magistrates were

against his doing so. I understand that the Minister's reply was that, if the licensing justices opposed it, the Minister would not do so. I should like to have that point cleared up.

Mr. Watkinson: That was not the point at all. I said that the local licensing justices retained the entire right to decide whether London Airport had a licence or not, and that if they said that it should not have a licence the Bill would not affect the Airport at all, because it only follows a licence and does not precede it.

Mr. Williams: While I accept the Minister's interpretation, it still remains, from my reading of the Bill, that whether or not the Uxbridge licensing justices want an extension beyond the so-called iron curtain of London Airport, the Minister is in a position to impose the Bill upon them. I should like to have that made clear, for there appears to be some misapprehension. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ince wanted was an assurance that the views of the local licensing justices would prevail over the Minister's views.
I want, very deliberately, to repeat a question which has already been addressed to the Minister, and I think we are entitled to an answer. It seems that at present, in the Minister's view, only two airports come within the ambit of the Bill—London Airport and Prestwick Airport. With the development of international air traffic, I feel sure that Manchester will develop tremendously in the course of the next few years. Will these facilities be denied to Manchester, or to Lympne, or Bovingdon, where so many people arrive every day?
Let us assume that Cardiff develops as we expect. Is the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to impose his will upon the Welsh people? There is nothing in the Bill to say that he will not. If I represented a Welsh constituency, I should require a very definite assurance that, without the consultation of the Welsh people in some form or other, they would not be included within the provisions of the Bill.
There is a very narrow issue here which makes the whole Bill ridiculous We are dealing with the short period between a passenger's arrival at London Airport, or Prestwick, and the time when he boards the plane where he can get plenty of


booze," or when he arrives at his hotel where he can have plenty of liquor. The narrow issue is whether for that small interval to cater for a few people we should challenge the licensing laws.
We are told that there is no time to deal with capital punishment, the cost of living and other important subjects, yet time can be found for a pettifogging thing like this Bill. I have read the debate in another place. It was sickening, childish and sixth-form in its advocacy and presentation. The House is being denied time to deal with essential things in order that a Bill can be passed to provide additional drinking facilities at London and Prestwick Airports.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: My task is to try to sum up the arguments which my hon. Friends have advanced, and it so happens that those arguments are all one way. I must make it clear, however, that this is not a party matter. As other occasions have shown when the issue came to a Division, 20 or 30 of my hon. Friends have voted the other way. One or two of my hon. Friends were sponsors of the Private Member's Bill from which the present Bill has sprung.
There has been a good deal of argument and discussion tonight. The only point of general agreement which I have been able to record is that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House very much regret that Mr. James Hudson and Mr. Geoffrey Bing were not here to contribute to this debate, as they have contributed to similar debates in the past.
A debate so far-ranging that we have had Lenin and the Bible quoted shows the width of hon. Members' reading and study. I have tried to bring the points which have been made under a few headings.
First, it is right to draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to the fact that there is a background of suspicion with which we on the Labour benches approach Tory legislation connected with drink. It always sets us inquiring. Not everyone, of course, has the experience of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), who must know as well as we— and be conscious of it every day—the long tradition of association of drink interests and Toryism.
We are always suspicious of this, because, as one of my hon. Friends has mentioned, the Tory Party does not publish details of the financial contributions which it receives in its campaigns. One of the first acts of their 1951 counterrevolution was to introduce legislation directly affecting the brewers in respect of the public houses in the New Towns. The suspicion is increased today, because, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, neither the Home Secretary nor the Joint Under-Secretary for the Home Department is taking part in the debate today. It is suspicious when the Department of the Minister really concerned with the administration of the licensing laws has no representative here to deal with these points.
A considerable number of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends came under the general heading of opposition to any extension of facilities for drinking, because they alleged that drink in itself was an evil. Here, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), in an intervention, referred to the greater moderation that there is today in connection with drinking, and the point of disagreement which he had with an hon. Member opposite was as to who should take the credit for that—the temperance movement or changes in social customs not connected with that movement at all.
I myself intervened earlier when the hon. Member for Wimbledon gave way when quoting figures of convictions for drunkenness. May I say—and this is relevant to the argument—that I think everyone in this House is appalled at the figures of convictions for juvenile drunkenness? That is a terrible thing, but our horror at that state of affairs and our readiness to work against it should not mislead us about the position regarding convictions for drunkenness over the whole range of the population. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member said, that during the last ten years there has been an increase, but ten years ago there were millions of men overseas and there was very little drink available for those who were here. The truer comparison of the figures today is that they are considerably less than those of the pre-war years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Open-shaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) challenged the Minister when he talked about restriction. The Minister appeared to limit the


facilities to travellers, and my hon. Friend put a point which requires elucidation— what about the officials who are behind the Customs barrier? That was the point, it is a relevant point and should be dealt with.
As to the method proposed in this Bill. again there has been a good deal of discussion on the fact that this Bill takes something away from the licensing authorities. Several hon. Members have raised that point, which I should like to see cleared up. Is it the fact—and if so, is it not wrong in principle—that the Customs should decide whether exemption from the current licensing laws should be given effect to in a certain part of the airport? I know that the argument is that it is not the airport itself but only a certain part of the airport, but is that power given in fact to the Customs rather than to the licensing authorities?
My hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Mr. Hastings), Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and others have referred to the "thin edge of the wedge." Here we are asked to concede a principle, and the Government must have considered the effect of that. I should like to hear their argument, if it is not a new principle. If it is, 1 should like to know what makes this so different from any other case.
Many of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to the danger of passengers boarding an aircraft after having taken too much to drink. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) both referred to the need for discipline, which may be as necessary among passengers as among members of the crew. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking brought his medical knowledge to bear, and referred to the dangers which would exist. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) referred to the possible difficulties which would face hostesses and stewardesses.
To my mind, the most important argument—because of the source from which it came—was that advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge regarding the danger from passengers who had taken too much liquor. Not only is my hon. Friend an experienced air traveller and a former Parliamentary Secretary to

the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but he is also an experienced airline pilot, and I think it important that he should present the argument in the way he did.
The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) said he had never seen a drunken person boarding an aircraft. I have not seen one boarding an aircraft but this I have seen, and I do not mind whether it is accepted as an argument by those who support or are against the Bill. I was standing at London Airport behind a man in the queue to board an aircraft to cross the Atlantic. The name of the man is probably known to half of the hon. Members present. It was quite clear that that man was drunk. Just as we were presenting our boarding cards, that man was tapped on the shoulder by an official who said, "Excuse me, Sir, but Sir John D'Albiac would like to have a word with you. He wants to wish you a pleasant trip." The man went through a door and the key was turned and the rest of us went into the aircraft. These things do happen, and that is the type of safety precaution which must be taken.
A number of hon. Members opposite made the point that tourists would go elsewhere were these facilities not provided. That argument was forcibly rejected by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) and others. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said that in all his experience he had never known a case in which people, when deciding whether they would fly via this country or not, had changed their bookings because they might not get a drink here.
I think it right that we should bear in mind that seven hon. Friends of mine have spoken against the Bill. A number of points have been made by hon. Members to which they are entitled to an answer. Hon. Members on this side of the House have a free vote, because my party regards matters connected with the licensing laws as matters of conscience. I know that the hon. Member for Wimbledon would very much like to be in our party on such occasions as this, because he often has a struggle in his party.

Mr. Black: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard what I said at the beginning of my speech. I made it quite clear that I was going to follow my conscience—and I am.

Mr. de Freitas: I know, but I am sure that the hon. Member would like to feel that he could persuade some of his hon. Friends to adopt his views, and he is surely very much handicapped in that respect by the attitude of the Government Front Bench, which refuses to remove the Whip. There is still a chance, however. The deputy Chief Whip, new to his office, would be only too glad to be allowed to be persuaded, at the right moment, to allow the Minister to announce that the Whips were off, and that hon. Members opposite could vote according to their consciences. It is a serious matter when an important party in the State does not allow a free vote upon such a matter as this.
I said at the beginning of my speech that this was not a party matter. The Private Member's Bill from which this Bill arose, was backed by some of my hon. Friends, and other of my hon. Friends will doubtless vote for this Bill. It is not important what I do, representing only one six-hundredth of the voting strength of the House. I shall not vote against the Bill, but unless the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has substantial answers to the many points raised by my hon. Friends—and he has over half an hour in which to make his speech—I shall certainly not vote for the Bill.

9.27 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has done the House a good service. It was not an easy task for him to call together the arguments which have been made against this very modest Measure which the Government are asking the House to accept tonight. I shall do my best to try to deal with some of the problems raised and some of the arguments which have been put forward, although I cannot accept what was said by, I think, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), namely, that the onus is upon the Government to show the reason for this Measure. I thought that it was an elementary principle, at any rate of British justice, that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty, and I should have thought that we who are producing this Measure have a right to assume that, against the background of the Bill—which did not come from us originally—the onus is upon the Opposition to prove that it is a bad Measure.
Aspersions have been cast upon the parenthood of the Bill, and in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) I ought to emphasise that he was quite correct in saying that this matter was originally brought forward by the British Travel and Holiday Association before the present Government took office, and was then being considered by what is now my Department. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman who was then Home Secretary had no knowledge of it was probably because it was only in the consultative stage. There was then a change of Government.
It is totally wrong to say—and it would be monstrous to represent—that the Bill has anything to do with the vested interests of the liquor trade. I want to make that point most strongly, because such a suggestion would be unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who promoted a Private Member's Bill upon the same subject on an earlier occasion. The Government wholly agree with the object of this Measure. It will not cut very deeply across basic principles. I readily concede that many of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, and also by some of my hon. Friends, have had their origins in a deep conviction against any form of extension of the drinking laws.
I have some sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) that the majority of speeches in favour of the Measure have been, in the main—there were exceptions—by hon. Members who have done a great deal of travel by air and who know a great deal about the air transport industry, whereas the majority of speeches made against the Measure have been made by Members who are recognised readily as having a deep-rooted feeling against the extension of the liquor laws, rather than a rooted objection to what we are trying to do in this small Measure in the international airports.

Mr. Ede: I notice that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not go as far as his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) who said that if the Labour Government had not


gone out of office they would have brought in this Bill. 1 gather from what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says that he has no evidence that the consultations, as he called them, had got anywhere near that stage.

Mr. Profumo: I should not like to predict what sort of Measure the Labour Party might have produced if it had stayed in office. Knowing what has happened in the past and how divided its members are on major issues of national policy, I suspect that the consultations would probably have come to nothing. I was only seeking to show that the Bill has not been promoted by any vested interest and goes back beyond our time as a Government. For substantial reasons, we have brought forward this modest Measure.
Let me deal with criticisms that have been made against the method proposed in the Bill. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Uxbridge, made a general point which I can perhaps summarise as follows. The areas to be exempted should be specified in an order made by the local licensing committee and, secondly, it is wrong that any Minister should have power over licensing matters. The short answer is that the method chosen in the Bill seems to be the simplest and most practical way of achieving the object of the Bill, to enable air travellers using foreign-going aircraft, and virtually no one else, to get a drink when they wish to.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) made the point while my right hon. Friend was speaking, and it is correct, that we cannot totally exclude everybody on the other side of the Customs barrier from getting drink. There may be Customs people engaged in operational work at the airport, and indeed there are the barmen themselves; nothing can be done to stop them from getting drinks out of permitted hours. The general object is to make it possible for travellers to get drinks when they think they should have them.
The hon. Member did not indicate that there would be any abuse. I think he has already said so. There may be a few extra people able to get drinks out of hours as a result of the Bill, but surely that is no reason for denying facilities to those to whom we wish to allow them.

That argument could be advanced much better by the Opposition than by hon. Members on the Government side of the House. A few people may get this facility who are not people intended to get it, but their number will be very small.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I hope the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that I was not applying my yardstick to the merits or demerits of the case, but to a point of accuracy about the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend said that he hoped that when I spoke I would try to be even more accurate than the hon. Member felt was then the case, and I hope that I have been.
Let me put two questions to the House as they have been put to me. First, who should decide at which airport permitted hours should be relaxed? I suggest that is a national matter rather than a local one, and the reason that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has presented this Bill, and not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is that he is in the best position to decide when the international traffic at a particular airport has reached a level sufficient to justify the extension of normal hours for the sale of liquor. I need hardly say that my right hon. Friend has no ambition for power in this unaccustomed field, and that all the power which this Measure will give to him is permission to apply the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to any airport which seems to him to merit it. That is not a very great or dangerous power.
The second question is who should decide the hours of sale to be allowed at each airport? The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised this matter against the background of the licensing authority. If the relaxation of permitted hours is to be sufficient to cover the period during which passengers are regularly arriving or departing, whatever authority is responsible for making such a decision has no option but to grant relaxation over the twenty-four hours. There must be elasticity, because at certain times of the year there are more aeroplanes arriving at night, and they are also always dependent upon the weather. Therefore, we cannot lay down, without going to the licensing authority every day, any specific hours, and we have to make them round the clock. If we do that there


is no point in seeking the sanction of the local licensing authority once it has been decided that a particular airport qualifies for special treatment.
Consideration was given to the justices' view prior to the introduction of the Bill, and I must make it clear that, as my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, the Bill does not affect in any way the power of the licensing authority with regard to the issue of licences. I think that this is a point which has been worrying hon. Members on both sides of the House. The powers conferred apply only to licensed premises—that is to say to those premises which have been, or may be, duly licensed by the licensing authority—and further, only to such premises as have been provided purely for the use of passengers beyond the Customs barrier. This is the point which the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) raised when he asked me whether these areas were subject to all the laws which apply to licensed premises. Yes, they are indeed—including the fact that the police may go there without a warrant.
There are other ways in which we might have gone about getting what we want in this Measure. I do not think that we should have been right in doing so. I make this point to the House. There are already special provisions whereby in special circumstances liquor may be sold outside permitted hours, and it seems to me that the establishment of these special circumstances cedes a much greater principle than any principle which has been ceded in the present Measure.
These special circumstances include occasional licences. It is possible to get an occasional licence for some particular function. The second case is under a special order for exemption which relates to special occasions, national or local. The third case is under a general order for exemption, and that is for people attending public markets or following a special trade. This is significant. Some hon. Members have asked, if we are to adopt this procedure at an airport, why not follow it in certain areas where people are working at all hours? That can be done. It is possible to obtain an extension on the ground that the people working there require it. I cannot go as far as including railway termini, because in that case there would be no segregated area and

the position would be extremely difficult. But there are conditions under which people who work in special trades can get drinks at abnormal hours of the day or night.

Mr. Remnant: Will my hon. Friend deny that in all the cases he has mentioned the extension is granted by the licensing justices?

Mr. Profumo: I am coming to that.

Mr. Bowen: Will the Minister also concede that none of these covers a period of twenty-four hours or anything like that?

Mr. Profumo: Although these special conditions do not cover twenty-four hours, added to the normal hours they can cover twenty-four hours. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham—and this was a point I was about to make-that it is only after the licence has been granted by the licensing authority that my right hon. Friend, if the Bill is passed, can take any action at all.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not fair to say that the Minister has no right to assume that the licensing authority would grant the licence if it were for the unrestricted hours?

Mr. Profumo: It is open to the licensing authorities, when an airport licensee applies for a renewal of his licence, to refuse to grant it. I agree that they cannot revoke it while it is current unless there has been some misdemeanour, but when the licence comes up for renewal it is within the power of the licensing authority, if it wishes, to decline to renew it. My right hon. Friend can do nothing until a licence has been given by the regular licensing authorities.

Mr. Stan Awbery: Is it not open to the licensing authority under the present law to extend hours for special occasions? Would not that cover the position?

Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because that is the point which I was trying to make. I will not elaborate it, but there are these many special conditions under which drinking hours can be lengthened. It might have been possible for the Government to have brought about the desired conditions at international airports by recourse to one of these special provisions, but we felt


that that would be a back-door method of bringing it about and would be wrong. We felt that the right thing to do was to adopt this method. We felt that it would be proper for us to come before the House in the normal way and ask for specific powers.
I want to say a word about the importance of our international airports. Great pains have been taken and, as the House knows, much expenditure has been incurred in order to make London Airport perhaps the greatest airport in the world. It would be nothing short of folly if this great national asset were spoiled or in any way affected because of the lack of an important, and to most foreign travellers a usual, service.
In spite of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), there is no doubt that the present restrictions on hours of sale of liquor place United Kingdom airports at a disadvantage compared with many other European airports. I ask the House to accept that there is no doubt about that. The only countries in Western Europe where there are any restrictions on these hours are the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland, and even in those countries the licensing hours are more generous than in this country.
Perhaps, as a sidelight on this matter, hon. Members who have taken a considerable part in debating this subject this evening may have had time to read the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which made quite a point of asking whether there were any ways in which we could make further use of our expensive international airports. Hon. Members who read this Report will see that it made a special point about amenities. I am afraid I have not a copy of the Report with me. I am wholly in agreement with it in that airports will be better the more amenities we have. It is a perfectly acceptable fact, with which I know the House will agree, that today there is very little to choose between the international airlines of the world and not much to choose between the great airports. What counts is what facilities are given—are people made comfortable, are they looked after? I submit that a way of making extra use of these airports is to give them facilities, which, I assure hon. Members, all international passengers would like to have.
I do not say that without these facilities we should turn away hundreds of thousands of dollar-earning passengers— certainly not—but let us see that this great national asset is a credit to the country rather than that people should not go there because of some pettifogging regulations.

Mr. Beswiek: Would the hon. Gentleman answer one question, which rather puzzles me? I agree that this great national asset should have all possible facilities, but why have the Government found time for this Bill and not found time for acceding to the request made by many people that there should be a bonded warehouse at London Airport in order to facilitate through freight traffic?

Mr. Profumo: I think I might be in danger of trespassing the limits of order if I were to discuss something which does not appear in the Bill at all. I know that when hon. Members opposite were in power they churned out laws like sausages, but we on this side of the House have at least found time for this Measure. Surely that augurs well for later Measures which will help this national asset.
I want to make a point in answer to several questions about the difference between airports, seaports, railway stations, and so on. There is really a distinct difference. I do not think I need go into the difference between railway stations and airports, but there is a difference between passengers travelling through seaports and airports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and other hon. Members have mentioned this matter, but I should like to put it on record that at airports one does incur more frequent and very irritating, lengthy delays due to conditions which are in no way under the control of those operating the airlines. Often at Question Time we have Questions about fog and F.I.D.O. and so on. At London Airport there is often fog or weather conditions suddenly change, or there is a breakdown of aircraft and technical hitches which take unspecified times to put right. When passengers have gone through the Customs they cannot be sent back to London or back to their homes or hotels because one never knows when the aircraft may be ready to take off.
There is a great deal of truth in the saying that if there is enough blue in the sky to make a pair of airman's trousers, the plane may take off within ten minutes. The passengers have to be kept there. Even though we have managed to make London Airport extremely comfortable that waiting is still immensely boring. That cannot be compared with the conditions at a seaport where; after going through the Customs, the passengers can go on to the ship. Ships are not subject to licences. A passenger can go into a cabin and lie down and can take off his shoes. At an airport the passenger cannot get on to the aeroplane but has to stay around and wait.
Take the difference in regard to incoming passengers. Some people have said that having travelled across the Atlantic or the Channel by sea one might feel in need of a drink. That person has not come down from 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 feet and been flying in atmospheric conditions which are not the same as those on the ground. One may have been whirling around in a fog over London Airport and be extremely tired and frightened when one comes down. One may be only in transit and not destined for London at all, but have to wait there until the time to be taken elsewhere by another aeroplane. If hon. Members can think of any conditions under which a drink could be of more assistance, I should like to know of them.
Seriously, however, it is correct to say that an enormous number of foreign visitors catch their first glimpse of the United Kingdom round the corner of a cumulus cloud. Therefore, we have to do everything we possibly can to make sure that when they reach the ground, they feel welcome and are properly looked after.

Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest in all seriousness that we can make people comfortable and feel that they are welcome only if we give them alcoholic drink?

Mr. Profumo: What I suggest in all seriousness is that there are conditions under which even the hon. Lady, with all her charm, could probably not make anybody feel welcome unless she was able to offer them a little alcoholic stimulant.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) and other hon. Members ex-

pressed fears about the provisions of the Bill in its context of the possible temptations to aircrew. I should make it clear that so far as the British airlines are concerned, the strictest regulations are in existence. In the Corporations and in the independent airlines, pilots are forbidden to drink at all under any conditions when in uniform. Furthermore, as has been mentioned already, no pilot is allowed to take any alcoholic drink for a period of eight hours or more before his aircraft takes off.
Some pilots, of course, are already subjected to temptations of round-the-clock licensing at foreign airports which they have to visit in the course of their tour of duty. However, no difficulty in this respect has shown itself so far. The companies' rules have been most scrupulously adhered to and I trust that I have been able to set at rest the minds of those who have feared that aircrews might be put in a dangerous position as a result of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) referred to reports in the American Press to the effect that stewards and stewardesses in their association have passed a resolution disapproving of the serving of liquor on aircraft. As far as I am aware, no representations have been made from airline staffs in this country. In any case, this is a separate issue from that involved in the Bill, although it is at least arguable that the extension of facilities at airports might result in a reduction in the amount of drink which is taken on board aircraft.
As one hon. Member pointed out, the danger is that of drinking against the clock. If there is round-the-clock drinking, people are unlikely to say, "Let us have another quick one because they are closing down." A serious point which was raised was the difficulty about people getting on to aircraft in a state of intoxication. It is already an offence by law to enter an aircraft in a state of intoxication. The airline companies have the strictest regulations. The captain of an aircraft has orders to refuse to allow to board an aircraft anybody who looks like being intoxicated. I say this so that everybody should know what may happen. Incidentally, after what the hon. Member for Lincoln has told me, I shall always look askance whenever Sir John D'Albiac


comes up to me at the airport and says, "How do you do?" Of course, these provisions concerning intoxicated people boarding aircraft have the force of law, and, if necessary, police can be employed to remove anybody who looks as if he is intoxicated who gets into an aircraft.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) raised some points about the application of the Bill in Scotland. I do not think that he need be very worried. I can assure him that in Prestwick the "iron curtain" is as strong as it is at London Airport and that he will not be able to mingle with people who have not passed the Customs barriers. The main point made by the hon. Member and other hon. Members was on the question of what the situation would be in an area either in Scotland or Wales where it was against the law to drink on Sundays or on certain other days and how the provisions of the Bill would be affected. If a poll is taken under the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, in a parish where an airport is situated and it results in a "no-licence" resolution this will prevail at the airport as elsewhere in the parish, and no sale of liquor will be possible there even under the Bill. The situation would be the same, broadly speaking, in Wales.
I appreciate that the Measure has met with some opposition from those who feel strongly about temperance. I much appreciated the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. I greatly respect, and so does my right hon. Friend, the sincerity of these views. It is indeed strange that we have had a debate on this matter without the intervention of the former hon. Member for Ealing, North. I feel almost apologetic at commending a Measure of this sort in the absence of Mr. James Hudson. If he is here in more than spirit, if I may put it that way, perhaps it may be of some little consolation to him to know that with the usual scrupulous fair-mindedness of Her Majesty's Government this debate has been arranged to take place during the normal licensed drinking hours.

Seriously, 1 do not think that anyone can be fearful of this modest and simple Measure, or that it will cut across any deep-rooted principles or jealously-guarded standards. No one will be able to take advantage of the Bill by indulging in alcoholic orgies. One cannot stop in the Customs area of an airport longer than the Customs officers require one to stay there. I am certain that we are not ceding any great principles. This is not anything that the House need get extremely excited about and I agree with some hon. Members opposite that perhaps we have even more important things than this Measure to debate. I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that without further delay we can give it a Second Reading.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I am anxious to say a few words about the Bill before I record my vote. The Bill appears to me to provide something more than an opportunity for a man to have a pint of beer on an airport. It takes the airport right out of the operation of the law. Clause 1 (2) states that the law dealing with hours of drinking shall not apply to the airport, and it will be within the power of the Minister to grant permission to the aerodrome to sell drink throughout the 24 hours if necessary.
This is a small, one-Clause Bill. A great deal of heat has been generated on the question of a pint. Fifty years ago we were hearing of the imperial pint and the Conservative Party. The same thing applies today. Whenever the question of drink and licensing arises in the House heat is generated, usually by the Conservative Party. It appears that when we are dealing with the brewers and the drinks question we touch the quick of the Tory Party. I disapprove of the Bill and I shall certainly vote against it.

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 89.

Division No. 103.]
AYES
110.0 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)


Armstrong, C. W.
Barber, Anthony
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Ashton, H.
Barlow, Sir John
Bidgood, J. C.


Astor, Hon. J.J
Barter, John
Biggs-Davison, J. A.


Atkins, H. E.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel




Bishop, F. P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neave, Airey


Body, R. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Harmar


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Holt, A. F.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J, A.
Hope, Lord John
Nield, Basll (Chester)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Brockway, A. F.
Houghton, Douglas
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas


Bryan, P.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Page, R. G.


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Parker, J.


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Partridge, E.


Campbell, Sir David
Hughes-Voting, M. H. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Carr, Robert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Powell, J. Enoch


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Profumo, J. D.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ralkes, Sir Victor


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Roy Stechford)
Renton, D. L. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Crouch, R. F,
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panaris, N.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Roper, Sir Harold


Davidson, Viscountess
Keegan, D.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Russell, R. S.


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Digby, Simon Wlngfield
Kershaw, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Kirk, P. M.
Sharpies, R. C.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lagden, G. W.
Shepherd, William


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Viscount
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Duthie, W. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Speir, R. M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Leather, E. H. C.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Leavey, J. A.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, W. G.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Legge-Bourke, Mal. E. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.


Fell, A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Storey, S.


Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Fletcher, Erio
Lloyd, Ma). Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Freeth, D. K.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Gammans, Sir David
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Glover, D.
MacColl, J. E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Godber, J. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Timmons, J.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Touche, Sir Gordon


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McKibbin, A. J.
Turner, H. F. L.


Gough, C. F. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vane, w. M. F.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Green, A.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Vosper, D. F.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Macpherson, Nlall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Major Patrick


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Gurden, Harold
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wigg, George


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)




Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, A. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mathew, R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hay, John
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Winterbottom, Richard


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, R. L.
Wood, Hon. R.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Zilliacus, K.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.



Hicks-Beach, MaJ. W. W.
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Mr. Studholme and


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mulley, F. W.
Mr. Redmayne.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nairn, D. L. S.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Blyton, W. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Beswick, F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Black, C. W.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Fernyhough, E.


Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Finch, H. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Forman, J. C.







Granfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Royle, C.


Grey, C. F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Short, E. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mahon, S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hannan, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mason, Roy
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hastings, S.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Bwly Regis)
Moody, A. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sylveser, G. 0.


Holman, P.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Holmes, Horace
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Usborne, H. C.


Hoy, J. H.
Oram, A. E.
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, T.
Wade, D. W.


lsaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, w.)
West, D. G.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Willey, Frederick


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Probert, A. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Kenyan, C.
Randall, H. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Rankin, John
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Lindgren, G. S.
Remnant, Hon. P.



Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mabon, Dr. J. D.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. McGhee and


Mclnnes, J.
Ross, William
Mr. Emrys Hughes.


Resolution agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

AGRICULTURE (SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in agriculture and certain other occupations and the avoidance of accidents to children arising out of the use, in connection with agriculture, of vehicles, machinery or implements; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State in carrying out the said Act.

MILITARY AIRCRAFT (EXPENDITURE AND POLICY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: On 2nd November I put a Question to the Under-Secretary of State for Air asking whether the whole of the sum of £292 million carried on the Air Estimates for the purchase of aircraft and stores would be spent in the current year 1955-56. The Under-Secretary of State told me that it was not possible at that stage to say by how much the amount would be underspent, but it was quite clear from what he said that the full sum would not be spent. Since that time there has been a variety of rumours about the Government's intention to cut back aircraft purchases.
It is my purpose, therefore, in this Adjournment debate, to give the Minister of Supply an opportunity to tell the House and the country the Government's policy on this score. It is obvious that during the last ten years vast sums have been expended on the purchase of aircraft. My estimate is that the sum is in excess of £1,000 million. After ten years the country wants to know—and I am sure that I want to know—what we have for our money. In terms of security, in terms of defence, I regret to say, it is not very much. This is no party question, for the responsibility for mistakes in the past rests equally on the shoulders of my right hon. Friends as on the shoulders of the present Government.
In reaching this conclusion, I have only the advantages that one can obtain from the exercise of such diligence and such brains as one has, but from inquiries which I have made, I have drawn up a list of no fewer than 157 projects which have been started in the last ten years. Of those 157 projects, no fewer than 36, covering 29 different designs, ended in crashes; that is to say, that of the 157 projects in the last ten years, no fewer than 18·6 per cent. came to untimely ends, in many cases unfortunately involving loss of life.
That is by no means all the story. Of the 157 projects, there were only 16 which went to production runs of any size and only two which went to runs of more than 3,000. My charge against both Governments, Labour and Conservative alike, is that they started to do far too much. This over-expansion applied not only in the air. We set out to have a great Navy, a great Army and a great Air Force. As I ventured to warn the House before, the outcome is that we have very much less than we ought to have.
It is true that if one studies with care the defence debates of a year ago, one sees that the country's strategy on which our defence has been based has been moving in the direction of giving the air much greater importance than it had in the past. In this changed conception, I do not believe that time is on our side. I hold the view that if we now had a V-bomber force of considerable size, the Prime Minister, when he went to Washington last week, would have been heard with much more care and attention than he received.
I have never forgotten the lesson of the brigade group in Korea, and I am proud and honoured to have been associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in those troublous days. If that brigade group had not gone in, when Earl Attlee went to Washington and talked to Mr. Truman, he would not have had the power which in fact he did have. It is almost a matter of national life and death that we should look at this expenditure on defence with increasing care, and that the principles on which we should base our expenditure and policy are those of the conservation of our forces and the rationalisation of our defence industries. At all costs we must avoid in each of the Services—because

our national survival and voice in world affairs depend on it—the temptation of trying to do too much.
I hold the view that it is no national dishonour that we have not got the strength that we had in the days that are gone, and that we really ought not to be ashamed if we find ourselves in a weakened position. The only thing of which we should be ashamed is not facing up to the conditions forced upon us. I have tried to arrive at the figures of the air strengths of ourselves and other countries—as far as swept-wing fighter aircraft are concerned. My estimates are: U.S. Air Force about 6,000, U.S.S.R. 8,000, U.S. Navy 1,500, Chinese Air Force 2,000, United Kingdom 1,000, Sweden 1,000, Canada 500, France 200, Holland 100 and Belgium 100.
I think I am not saying too much in asserting that, for the vast expenditure of money—I say about £1,000 million—we ought to have done at least as well as Sweden. We have got 1,000 swept-wing fighters, and I make them to be 800 Hunters and 200 Sabres. That force is not of sufficient strength to deal with an attack, particularly if it came at night.
Turning to the question of V-bombers and heavier aircraft, the outlook is even more deplorable. I am talking about jets, of course. My figures are as follows: light bombers—U.S.A. 500, U.S.S.R. 3,000, United Kingdom 450; medium bombers—U.S.A. 2,000, U.S.S.R. 300, United Kingdom 50: heavy bombers— U.S.A. 25, U.S.S.R. 60, United Kingdom nil. That is a dismal picture indeed, and I should therefore like to hear the Minister emphasise some of his recent public utterances that he recognises that in the next ten years we cannot attempt to tackle anything like the 157 projects of the past decade. If we limited our projects between now and 1965 to about 40 we could go in for an all-weather fighter, and build up our V-bomber force. But at all costs we must realise that there is a limit to what we can do, and we should set out to do what can be done within the limits of our economic strength.
I think that one of the tragic stories here is the fact that the aircraft industry has prospered at a time when our defences have not prospered in anything like the same ratio. Here there is something wrong. There are 14 great aircraft companies, and it seems to me that we


ought to recognise that it is beyond their strength for all of them to be prime contractors. If we limited the prime contractors to five, and made the other nine companies sub-contractors, we could get far more done than we have managed to get done in the past.
I had hoped that the earlier debate on the Licensing (Airports) Bill might have finished rather early, and that we should have had time for a longer discussion, so that 1 could have gone into the matter much more fully than I am able to do in the twelve or fifteen minutes now allowed me. I must not speak for many more minutes, because there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, and I certainly want to give the Minister time to reply, but I want to assure the Minister and the House that the more I dig into this question of defence, be it manpower or equipment, the more certain I am that unless we get something like a Council of State and an all-party approach, then our condition is likely to become very parlous indeed; for our defence policy has been and is beyond our economic strength.
It is clear—I make no party point here—from the economic state in which the country finds itself that we shall not be able to continue indefinitely with this enormous expenditure of between £1,300 million and £1,500 million a year. At all costs we have to get value for money. So far as my voice and my influence count for anything, I shall back the Minister wholeheartedly if he attempts with the utmost speed—if I may use a formula which I have used before—both to concentrate and rationalise our defence industry so that whilst reasonable profits may be made the country will get the defence equipment which it needs.
I agree that those who take the risk should reap the rewards of efficiency and flexibility; and the aircraft industry should certainly be given every encouragement to build up a considerable export trade in both civil and military aircraft.

10.21 p.m.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for allowing me time to say few words on this very important subject. I wish to declare my interest in the industry, as I

am a director of an aircraft manufacturing company. I think that the hon. Member has put his case very fairly.
As he admitted, there is blame to be attached to both Labour and Conservative Governments. The difficulty, at any rate with this Government, has been that they have had to carry on with development orders placed in the days of the Labour Government. With the best of intentions I think that the Labour Government placed far too many development orders and gave the industry far too easy a run. In the days of the Labour Government the industry took little or no risk, even on private projects for commercial aircraft. Far too few prototypes were ordered. Perhaps two were ordered and if unfortunately one was lost through an accident, we had to string along with one aeroplane on which to carry out all the development and primary tests, which proved a handicap and brought about delays.
The hon. Gentleman talked about heavy bombers. Of course, there are no heavy bombers in this country designated as such. They are called medium bombers—I think wrongly—whereas in actual fact they are heavy bombers. The hon. Gentleman said that we had none, but I think that my right hon. Friend will correct him, because although we have not a great many, they are coming on at a steady pace and there are certainly several squadrons in being today. The real trouble is that after the war the Chiefs of Staff and the Ministers did not look ahead to the future.
The Navy still had a preponderance of support in the House and from the Treasury. Money was spent on large capital ships and cruisers which are still laid up, cocooned, at Portsmouth and elsewhere. That was a complete waste of money, and the men in command at the time bear a great responsibility, not only for spending taxpayers' money but in regard to the securing of the defence of our country. What needs to be done is to bring about more integration of the three Fighting Services. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) tried at that time to the best of his ability to bring that about, I have heard that from many senior officers.
With all respect to Lord Brabazon, the Brabazon Committee was a complete failure. I fail to see how any Government committee could, at the tail end of


the war, foresee what airline operators would want in the way of equipment three or four years after the war. Of the Brabazon aircraft and the Princess flying boat—which might have been successful had a power unit been available— not one has gone into service. It shows that a Government committee may completely fail in its task of assessing the requirements of airlines.

Mr. F. Beswick: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is being unfair to the Brabazon Committee. In point of fact, its requirements have been proven by experience to be right. The failing has been in the manufacturers not building suitable machines to the specifications laid down by the Brabazon Committee.

Air Commodore Harvey: That may be a very good argument. In the case of the Princess flying boat, the design may have been right, but there was no engine to go in it, and it is no use building an airframe without an engine. The two have to go together. The Labour Government did not appreciate that point. They did not go into sufficient detail in order to see what might be forthcoming. The Brabazon Committee was a failure. I recently heard it said that the monument to Lord Brabazon will cost more than thirty times what it cost to build the Taj Mahal.
There is far too much Treasury control in all these matters. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who is responsible for securing equipment to defend this country and much of the Commonwealth, should be able to know what he can spend, not in a year, but in three years. There are far too many modifications from his Department, the Air Ministry and the manufacturers, and when the three are lumped together endless delays are entailed. The Estimates should be spread over a much longer period so that my right hon. Friend can meet his requirements.
I am not satisfied that we have yet achieved the best method of ordering equipment. I no longer think that the Air Ministry is the right Department to carry out that job, because there are so many committees, including research committees, which have to be coordinated in order to bring in all the

technical information. Something must be done to bring about a more flexible control in co-ordinating the requirements of the three Services. Some people are inclined to forget that aircraft are becoming more and more complicated. They now contain miles and miles of electric wiring and a great deal of electronic equipment, and no sooner is one trouble overcome than another has to be faced.
The hon. Member for Dudley was quite right in saying that we are trying to do too much. We must scale down the whole effort and tackle the job of getting our technical staff to concentrate upon a few projects so that they can be ready in time.

10.27 p.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I, too, regret that more time is not available for this debate, because the subject raised by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is so important and far-reaching that it is quite impossible for me to do justice to it in the course of a short Adjournment debate.
I very much appreciate the way in which the- hon. Member put his case, and I agree with much of what he said, but I must hasten to say that I do not accept the premises from which he drew his deductions. I certainly cannot accept his figures in relation to the numbers of aircraft in the respective air forces, nor can I quote the actual figures, for obvious reasons of security—but the figures which he quoted are not accurate.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) that our latest bombers should not be referred to as medium bombers. That is a misconception, because their height, speed and bomb-load over the target area is as good as anything in the world. The term "medium bomber" is a term of art. It is a pity, because these bombers are the equal of any others in the world in hitting power.
The hon. Member for Dudley was a little unfair to his own colleagues when he referred to the very large number of projects which his Government started but which did not end in mass production. I think he will find that a very large number of them were research projects, and it was never intended to build more than one or two aircraft for re-


search purposes. I would not blame the Labour Administration for starting too many research projects. We must distinguish between such projects and Service equipment.
I do not agree that there has been too much Treasury control in these matters in the past, but there is much to be said for the argument that when dealing with an aircraft—a machine which is built over a period of many years—an annual system of control has considerable disadvantages. The American system of what is called "fund financing" has many advantages, but that is a subject which we can pursue upon other occasions and at greater length. I agree that considerable disadvantages arise from a system of annual budgeting with regard to a machine like an aircraft.
On the question of expenditure in the current year upon the provision of military aircraft, the hon. Member for Dudley is quite right in saying that there will be a substantial underspending, although I cannot give the exact figure. That situation arises for several reasons. First, two decisions of the Government which have already been announced in this House. One is the cancellation of the major part of the Swift programme and the other the rephasing of the Javelin programme. Both these decisions were announced many months ago, and they account for much of the underspending this year upon the Air Ministry Vote in respect of aircraft.
The effects of some of the labour disputes we have had in recent months are bound to result in a quite substantial shortfall of production of aircraft, particularly in the production of engines. Apart from that, there will also be some underspending arising for the development problems of some of our modern aircraft, which have been continuing.
Here I want to remark upon our system of Treasury accounting. The Air Ministry does not pay anything for an aircraft until it is finally delivered and complete and technical clearance has been given. So one often finds, for instance, that an aircraft is 95 per cent. complete, but that some piece still has to come from the manufacturers of the black boxes or the magic boxes to be put into the aircraft. Thus, 95 per cent. of production expenditure does not

appear in the Air Ministry's spending that year; so far as that is concerned, the spending appears to be nil. So Air Ministry Estimates for a year, taken by themselves, do not give a really clear picture of the volume of production in that year.
I have been making some study of this matter, and I find that yearly production for the Services has been rising fairly steadily and substantially for the last five years. In 1955 it was substantially above that of the previous year, and the current rate of production of aircraft of military types is over twice what it was in 1950–51, and, of all aircraft, nearly two and a half times what it was then.
Exports, to which the hon. Member referred, have been going pretty well recently. In 1955 the industry exported an average of over £5 million worth a month, the major item being civil aircraft. That, I think, is really a very good record. So, production-wise, I think we have every reason to be satisfied with what has been happening.
That brings me to my next point. Amid all the welter of exaggeration that always goes on when people discuss in the Press or elsewhere the aircraft industry, amid the welter of excessive blame or excessive praise, there are certain hard facts which we ought to get clear. I suggest the facts are these. First, in production, our aircraft industry does a first-rate job. If we have an aircraft technically developed and cleared, and we say to a firm, "We want a hundred of these aeroplanes within a certain time," the firm will take a price and a date and work to them efficiently. I do not think that we have any complaint on the production side.
The difficulties always arise in the development phase, between the gleam in the designer's eye and the turning of the idea into a finished piece of hardware which can be put on the production line. That always absorbs time. My own impression, after visiting the United States, is that the development period in this country is not very different from what it is there. In the case of the big bombers, in both countries it is about a ten-year job from the start of the design studies to the formation of the first operational unit.

Mr. John Strachey: The right hon. Gentleman has said very interestingly that on both the production side in the narrow sense and on the development side we really have not done badly, that we have nothing with which to be dissatisfied. That may be true, but would he explain to us why nevertheless the actual types such as the Hunter, the Javelin and the V-bombers have come in so slowly? Some, at any rate, I think, are in great danger of being obsolete or obsolescent before they are with the squadrons. That is what we are concerned about, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is concerned about.

Mr. Maudling: I do not want to be controversial but the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to be. The date at which the V-bombers come into service is determined by the date at which they were operationally required. In the case of the Valiant, from its initial design in about 1947 to squadron service, the development period was eight years—a very good record. I think the time for the Vulcan will be nine years and the Victor will not be far behind. There is nothing about which to complain in the development period of our big bombers, which compares satisfactorily with that in the United States. If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, they are late in coming into service, it is because they were ordered late—and the ordering was done by his Administration and not ours.
In these matters we must remember that ten years is the normal development period on both sides of the Atlantic for medium and heavy bombers. If we are not getting the aircraft we want in 1956, it is because they were not ordered in 1946. I did not want to be controversial, but the facts ought to be on the record.

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Stracheyrose——

Mr. Maudling: I cannot give way. I have very little time.

Mr. Strachey: The Minister has been controversial——

Mr. Maudling: Only because I was provoked.

Mr. Strachey: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has not given way.

Mr. Maudling: I have given the facts up to now, and I want to follow a point made by the hon. Member for Dudley. The concentration of our resources in this development period is the essential problem, and it is the problem of applying technical facilities, engineering manpower and so on, whether it be in this country, in America or in France. On the whole, the good engineer is much of a muchness in the various countries; we may think that our engineers are better than American engineers, but there is not much to choose between them. If we put more engineers on the job, have more wind tunnels, have better weather for flying and have more prototypes, we shall do the job of development quicker, and that is exactly our problem.
Compared with the United States and with Russia, we have fewer engineers, fewer facilities and not such suitable weather—which is an important asset in the United States; and we have not the market and have not had the number of prototypes on which to work. In test facilities and manpower, we are outnumbered.
It therefore seems to me that the hon. Member for Dudley is absolutely right in saying that if we are to maintain our position we can do so only by concentrating our efforts as much as possible on the smallest number of projects. I would point out that there is a difference between concentration of the number of projects and concentration of the number of units.
It has often been said by people with knowledge of these matters that there are too many firms in the aircraft industry. I should not like to dogmatise on that; he would be a very brave man who said how many firms there should be in the aircraft industry—a very brave man indeed. Of one thing I am certain: to talk about having amalgamations or having a smaller number of firms does not make any sense when we have too many projects. If every firm already has more work than it can handle, it does not make sense to talk about amalgamating those firms.
The real problem is the relation between our technical resources and the load which we put on them. We can improve that relation only by increasing the technical resources, on the one hand, or by reducing the number of projects,


on the other hand, or by doing both simultaneously. It is inevitably a slow process to increase the wind tunnel facilities, the high-altitude test chambers and the engineering manpower, and we can more quickly reduce the number of projects. I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Dudley on the general principle that we can make the best of our resources only by concentrating them, and that process has been going on steadily for some time and it ought to continue.
To turn to the bomber position, we have three bombers—the Valiant, the Vulcan and the Victor. Within a measurable time the Valiant will be fading out and we shall be producing two V-bombers. We have already tooled up for the production of both aircraft. It would not make any industrial sense to concentrate on one aircraft and scrap the complete tooling for the other.
We have here a rather interesting and piquant situation. In this case there is real competition between two firms in the aircraft industry, and the Ministry of Supply is in the happy position of being able to invite competitive quotations from the two firms and, on the basis of those competitive quotations and prior performance, to allocate orders.
In the case of the V-bombers we are getting a definite rationalisation. With one aircraft fading out in a little while— and it was always intended to be an interim type—we shall be concentrating on the two heavy bombers which must be the mainstay of our deterrent force for a

number of years to come. Both have considerable possibilities of development and will continue to be formidable aircraft for many years.
That is an example of the rationalisation of production which is taking place, and I agree that that is the line along which we ought to proceed. I emphasise once again the time of testing. We have decided to introduce a policy of ordering more prototypes. The previous Administration ordered only small numbers. We have changed that and order a development batch of twenty instead of batches of three or four. It takes time to see the results of such a change of policy, and it will not be for three or four years that we shall see the results of having twenty aircraft to test instead of five or six.
In the aircraft industry, as in all things,
The evil that men do lives after them.
That applies to this Administration as much as to the previous Administration, and my unfortunate successors will have to cope with the evil which I am leaving after me. It will be a great advantage to the industry and the country if people realise the great length of the development cycle for these aircraft and do not by expecting too much or claiming too much, expect the impossible.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.